Everyone is being mean to me, so I won't play any more.

Grow up.

Trying to apply journalistic ethics to a public forum is naive especially in an area where the science is untested and the results are still largely conjecture (by which I mean that climate models still diverge greatly depending on how factors are applied, as per a recent New Scientist article on the issue.)

I have seen wild claims on both sides from denialists to doomsday prophecies.

If only balanced, ethical, and clearly reasoned submissions were accepted this would be very empty and not an opinion forum.

Yeah Yeah, of course OLO would be perfectly balanced if it only allowed articles representative of and agreeing with the unbalanced climate change fearmongering opinions of Clive Hamilton.

oops This comment shouldn't be published either because ...

Clive Hamilton,

I don't have any expertise in the subject, however I am rather sceptical about the "sceptics" since most of them are not even scientists but economists, engineers etc, where are all the scientists with the relevant qualifications who dispute the global warming hypothesis? I'm not sure what "captured" means in this context, certainly the editor seems to be casting a rather wide net in order to find dissenting opinions.

What an interesting dummy spit.Because On Line Opinion dares to publish both sides of a discussion.. Well then ,I take my Bat and Ball and toddle off....

Does this mean then , that the discussion on here will now become one sided

The Dark Side has won , Clive..!

Oh please!

Diddums is upset that we wont all agree with him?

Wow whilst you are at googling try finding out the horrors that occurred because of the 2000 bug holacaust! that was where we were all going to die as the clock ticked over. Nothing happened. It was sorted out by the computer people who were so smart they could not even understand the calendar.
Then what has happened to the hole in the ozone layer? The Italian scientist who "discoverd" this particular doomsday scenario said "Sorted" when an Australian scientist pointed out the fallacy of the whole "problem". The hole in the ozone is there, has always been there and will always be there and the same dopey gang believced that too!
Put that scintillating itellect of yours on your own quasi-religeous beliefs in climate change.

I hope you come to the truth one day Clive. You along with a host of other scientist have been hoodwinked. At least some who demand true science are starting to get a voice.

Big dummy-spit. Some people don’t agree with Clive, so he’s off.

If Graham Young’s disagreement with Robyn Williams was “disproportionate” with Williams’ criticism of Aitkin, what can be said of Hamilton’s huff?

If this is his last contribution, hooray!

OLO is about giving people who would otherwise be voiceless a chance to air their opinions. There is a diversity of opinion, and people who don’t like being disagreed with do not have to take part.

There has been a spate of climate change denialist articles on OLO. But differently to Clive I would think this should stir the fires of debate. If such a bias is evident there is an urgent need for balanced 'air-time' and we need people like Clive Hamilton to offer the opposing view. Do we just give up and submit to the energy and mining interests at the big end of town?

I am not sure I would place the CC/GW or AGW denialists in the same category as 9-11 CIA conspiracies or AIDS denialists but would agree that denialists should be transparent regarding their credentials and corporate affiliations. The failure to add 'energy industry lobbyist' to the Tom Harris's bio is remiss.

"What readers were not told is that Harris is a paid lobbyist for energy companies.."

What else aren't we being told, Graham?

I totally agree with Clive and have long wondered at all the space given to climate change sceptics on OLO.

A quick scroll through the current list of articles reveals there are three written from a sceptical viewpoint - "The UN climate change numbers hoax", "Is climate 'the' issue, or is it just one of many?" and "Cows and Coal". There are one or two articles on related topics loosely based on the premise that climate change is indeed real and absolutely no articles at all clearly arguing the climate change position. A very telling little tally, and quite disturbing when you consider that we discuss practically everything there is to be discussed on OLO and yet we're avoiding the most urgent issue facing humanity.

Clive, I do urge you to seriously reconsider your decision though, if only to address the imbalance you have so correctly pointed out and which is so clearly evident just in the responses here.

On the Henson issue, for example, your views there would have given the debate some much-needed balance. Henson supporters on OLO, of which Graham is one, had their views reflected in quite a few articles. The critics were given one good philosophical article, but apart from that it was left to the narrow viewpoint of Hetty Johnston to represent the opposing side of the issue. There was very little broadening out of the debate at all.

OLO needs you, Clive.

Shadow Minister “Everyone is being mean to me, so I won't play any more.

Grow up.”

I was going to say “unless you let me bowl first I am going to pick up my bat and ball and go home”

- but Aspley got there first.

The AGW affirmatives are beginning to pout.

From the range of posted opinions,
I see an absolute absence of any support for Clive’s view.

Have all the other ‘affirmatives’ likewise taken up their beds and walked?

Could it be, that people are now getting past the 'hype' and 'doomsayers' and actually questioning some of the unsubstantiated propaganda that is being foisted on them ad nauseam by politicians and some media outlets.
Bazil.

Yep... even the title shows the lame propaganda of the alarmists. No one denies there is climate change. Precious few deny there is global warming. Many, many scientists deny that we know the global warming we experienced from the late 1970s to 1998 was caused mostly by CO2 concentrations.

Such a nuanced difference seems to be beyond Clive Hamilton, who would rather dummy spit that people disagree with him, and that more and more people (and real scientists) disagree with him.

Notice that Clive doesn't address the accuracy of any of the realists articles, but merely spits his dummy and tries to poison the well. Such an argument from a philosophy professor is sad and pathetic. Clive you should be ashamed.

Debate the topic on it's merits Clive. Don't run home to mommy every time you find resistance.

The whole subject has become incurably political. Science is not decided by counting heads.We need to be very sure about what we are doing before we start wrecking the economy.

I have been a regular, even avid, reader of OLO, and think it serves an important purpose. Of course, it must be read from a perspective of ‘buyer beware’, and it would be impossible for the editors to check the veracity of entries.
Graham Young and team deserve to be congratulated for the initiative. While on the face of it he and the editorial team clearly have a lean to the right, this is not necessarily cause to think that a selective bias is at work.
Like Clive, I was surprised and disappointed at Graham Young’s attack on Robin Williams, as it was so disproportionate (and in places illogical) that I wondered what the real agenda was. Perhaps Clive is right.
OLO’s guidelines to authors refer to it as having an iconoclastic role, which is fair enough, but it also says that ‘we are continually seeking out contributors to put the other side’.
I look forward to seeing more evidence in support of the climate change position in future OLO posts.

Well I'm a non-climate scientist who generally accepts the premise that global climate is warming, and further that it is probably caused or exacerbated by human activites. I also agree that OLO is apparently biased editorially towards the sceptic/denialist camp.

However, I think that Clive Hamilton's spray is unhelpful. As pelican and Bronwyn suggest, what is needed is more articles being submitted that more honestly present the evidence about climate change and AGW than are presently being published at OLO, not less.

Hamilton's 'I'll take my bat and ball and go home' article invites derision from those who are either informed sceptics or ignorant denialists, as is evident in most of the comments above.

Col -

Since you asked, I am very concerned about global warming. Too many scientists have been talking for too long and too seriously. Comparing global warming with the Y2K bug or the hole in the ozone layer or the threat of a mini ice age is inappropriate. None of those were considered nearly as seriously. I certainly have doubts about the models used, but not enough doubts to throw the whole idea away. CO2 was 290ppm now its 390ppm and we are not slowing down for a second.

The silliest idea is that the scientists are in it for the money, but the trillion dollar coal, oil and natural gas industries are just guys out there doing a job, with no political thoughts in their heads.

As to Clive no longer contributing, I am saddened and I hope he reconsiders. I think he makes some very good points in this article as he so often does and we will all be the poorer for not getting his contributions.

I think it is a tough ask for OLO to count each article and decide if they have been balanced enough. I do think it would be appropriate that lobbyists are identified as such when their articles appear, but maybe Graham Young didn't know. That is the beauty of the forum where those issues can be identified.

Question: Has Graham Young come out and said he is or isn't a global warming denialist as charged?

I think his argument boils down to "I do not like what you're saying, so I want you to stop saying it".

His use of the word "denalists" demonstrates that his mind is closed to rational argument.

But the saddest thing is that, although he has read the articles, he obviously has not digested them. For someone who is an academic, this is inexcusable. What he is really saying is that "because you don't agree with IPCC you must be wrong" and therefore I will not take any notice of your arguments. If the world was governed by this rule, we would still be throwing rocks at each other. It blocks of all possibility of progress. Progress always starts with a few people doing -- or saying -- something different. I would guess that in almost every case, the pioneers were in the minority. I am sure that, long ago, there were objections to the newfangled idea of chipping stones to make knives and spears.

If he thought about it, he would realise that you do not have to be an expert in climate science to see the flaws in the argument. All you have to understand is that computer programs that are not an accurate model of the climate and are provided with an accurate data, cannot be relied on to predict the future.

When he attacks Harris and Maclean, all he was doing his demonstrating that, because he cannot answer their arguments, he It is prepared to resort to personal attacks. This is disgraceful. It should be drawn to the attention of his university.

If he cannot explain why the world is cooled since 1998 while carbon dioxide levels have risen, he should be listening carefully to the sceptics and studying what they say. If he can explain it, he should let us all know. Especially if he can find a theory that is consistent with "carbon dioxide causes warming" and the predictions of the climate models.

I know very little about climate change but i do remembering studying at school and if memory serves me correctly the climate changes regularly.
I'm sure i learnt about ice ages etc whilst young.Is it really anything new or just an ongoing cyclical thing.Does anyone know the answer to that?

I don't want a forum where those arguing that the earth is flat get equal space with those arguing that it is round. Equally I don't want a forum where articles disagreeing with views of the editor, or Clive Hamilton, or me, are censored.

What is needed is some basic quality control. Where an article argues that the earth is flat (especially if it written by a non-scientist, such as Don Aitkin, or a scientist in an irrelevant area, such as myself, or the mechanical engineer writing about climate change), the author should be required to have some awareness of the relevant science. Preferably citations should be included in the article.

And if the author's views have been seriously rebutted by the scientific consensus then he/she should be aware of it, and understand what the scientific consensus says (while being free to argue, on scientific grounds, the contrary)

Obviously this means some discernment on the part of the editor.

On the question of climate change - where is the serious science that supports the denialists point of view?

As for the recent comment
"Many, many scientists deny that we know the global warming we experienced from the late 1970s to 1998 was caused mostly by CO2 concentrations."
For instance? (and I don't mean I want their names, I want to see the scientific articles they've written)

Sooner or later the mainstream media and at least some of our politicians will be prepared to accept the weakness of the scientific case put by the AGW alarmists. In the meantime OLO is to be congratulated on its action in publishing views supported by an increasing number of scientists, whether climate specialists or not. And to mac, and other readers who may be having difficulty in finding those scientific opinions try, www.climatescience.org.nz or www.icecap.us for a start. And to the editor of OLO - don't be bullied by the likes of Clive Hamilton.

There will probably be more 'denialists' when the slavish trendies find out what the ridiculous notion of made-made climate change is going to cost them.

As a recent leader in the Australian suggested, the true believers will start to squeal when they find out that governments intend to relieve them of much more money than it takes to change a few light bulbs (now found to be toxic on disposal) or throw carbon-free rock concerts.

Mr Right you are assuming that most climate change believers, or even those who lean on the side that man may be contributing to GW to some degree, advocate for the carbon tax.

Many environmentalists I know do not for very good reasons.

A carbon emissions taxe does not necessarily stop or reduce the polluting activity and the cost will only be passed on to the consumer and those who can least afford to pay. A carbon tax does not offer anything for a major shift in focus to renewables or other less polluting activities. While we are still continuing to overpopulate a carbon emissions tax is a bandaid on a much bigger problem.

The reactions to my piece confirm that On-Line Opinion has become a magnet for climate sceptics. Perhaps that is what the Board of the journal wants. It would explain why it decided to appoint Ray Evans to its advisory board. As those who have read my book "Scorcher" will know, Evans has been the foremost climate sceptic activist in Australia for years. For example, he established the Lavoisier Group which has close ties with far-right think tanks in the US, some funded by Exxon.

If On-Line Opinion wants to go down that path, then that's fine. But it has consequences. I wonder whether the esteemed institutions affiliated with On-Line Opinion want to be associated with climate rat-baggery.

Anyone who has been involved in the climate change debate for the last decade or more knows that I have been at the forefront of taking the argument up to the fossil fuel lobby, the sceptics at The Australian and the Howard Government. I have frequently put myself in the firing line and been targeted by powerful forces on many occasions.

So it's a bit rich for sceptics who have never done anything other than post blogs under the cover of anonymity to accuse me of running from a fight. After all, I have just picked a fight with On-Line Opinion.

I can understand Clive's frustration. The specious arguments for journalistic "balance" often distort reporting of science. Nonsense like "intelligent design", for example, has been given way too much weight as a direct result of this journalistic ethic. While the notion of balance is theoretically laudable, in reality it simply creates misinformation. A better way to deal with the complexities of reporting science is for media people to understand science better and therefore exercise more judgement and nuance in dealing with it. The woeful misreporting of the climate change issue is just confusing people. Globally, we have a very serious problem to face but we are still having to deal with static from the denialists. It is delaying decisive action.

I thought you said you were leaving Clive... or have you realised from the comments above that the journal adheres 'to the objectives it was set up to pursue'.

weell when our politicians of all types and activists are going to outlaw of incandescent light bulbs (rather than let the lights sell themselves on their own merits and giving consumers a choice) i'm beginning to think climate change denial is a good thing, when i've firmly believed it's true. Ironic eh?

hey guys...take a moment to see the bigger picture...'climate change' aka 'global warming' is twin sided sword...one is current full throttle energy use is big money business with all its products and services and provides us the 'luxurious' life compared to our brethren even a hundred years ago...

other side is its destructiveness on mother earth...its becoming irreversible and harder to maintain our current ecosystems...read that most life around us may die out and with it us humans...for its not just the climate that changes...its effects are far and wide reaching...severe weather affects vegetation which animals need-both we need(with our fishes)-and with earth population currently 6 billion if we dont do something a critical mass reached...then...(and anyone dont suggest growing asparagus on mars...try that in 180km/hr dust storms...)

so yes big money can buy some 'favours'...and lets say graham of olo has succumbed a little too much to 'hypnotic-money-dangling effect' and happily publishing grossly manipulative and deceitful articles whose sole aim is to debunk any valid evidence that we are harming mother earth(not that we need it as its got to the stage we can see for ourselves)...and want the energy accelerator now pushed through the floor boards...I think we have eyes/ears/and a brain in-between thats not too psychologically manipulated as kids not to see through all this to the facts...

and I agree that the issue of possible olo bias has been raised by clive...after all its an important issue and seems that clive has noted enough to make that statement...we can make up our own minds from his article and by seeing how it goes...right...guys?

though clive soon there is will be no place to hide from the reality...so if I may suggest that 'feeling' to events affecting us is human and using it to forward what matters to us is an art in itself...and by not writing on olo may not help you feel better or help you achieve what you must...and this is what bring about balance in all things...opposing sides pushing and pulling so keeping the 'acts' in the balanced middle...hope that makes sense...

Sam

This Clive Hamilton at OLO says he is professor of public ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics but the only reference there is to a Clive Hamilton for Wednesday 28th of May at 4pm: Dr Clive Hamilton (Visiting Fellow, Regulatory Institutions Network, ANU). He certainly isn't listed as part of the academic staff nor as an adjunct appointment at CAPPE. Does he then have an ethical dilemma? lol

However for the real funny stuff just read his article here. He shows clearly that he has the AGW mind virus where most of these infected and poisoned unfortunates become so well immunized in the process that they just do not or cannot play outside their playpen. From the misperceived security of their playpen they have been repeatedly warned, come well armed with entrenched avoidance behaviours like pulling down the shutters, disconnecting and walking away from highly plausible arguments. This kind of belief doesn't require evidence because it is issued as pure rote "learning" and boyo does it have all bases covered. e.g. This is the great disconnect where belief in something without evidence is elevated as a particular virtue because there is this notion that any fool can believe something based on evidence. BUT, belief without any evidence takes "real character". lol

The only self-evident fact of nature here is that this whole AGW milieu is a contrived and twisted unreason coupled with very powerful inducements on captive and vulnerable minds. Probably harder to understand for these infected types like Clive is that this delusional attachment that supposedly takes "real character" is one of the major causes of crime in every shape and form.

Clive Hamilton, you have to learn something about these online journals. Their worth isn't in the articles. Its in the comments that follow. And if ever there was an illustration of that, it was Graham's article on Robyn Williams.

I don't think I have ever seen an article so publicly torn to threads. The forum's distaste for it was almost palatable. Even Don Aitkin, the person who was supposedly maltreated by Robyn, posted a comment saying he was happy with Robyn's introduction. Eventually I think the onslaught of criticism was too much for Graham to endure as it appears one of his most vocal few supporters in that thread was a sock puppet - which was outed. You are right in saying that article wasn't one of Graham's high points. In hindsight I think he might even agree.

It was, however, one of OLO's high points. If ever you wanted evidence that OLO is a bastion of free speech - that was it. Graham could of removed or altered any of those comments. Some with good reason - they bordered on personal abuse. Yet, as far as I can tell, he let every one stand.

This is in contrast newspapers and other traditional news outlets that have a tradition of controlling what they publish, and they continue to do so in their online forums. Often you will see them delete comments that are perfectly legal and on topic, their only crime being they disagree with the viewpoint the outlet is trying to push. Not only is this poor form, it this isn't terribly popular with those writing the comments.

Because of this, whether you decide to write again or not, Clive, I suspect OLO will be here for a long while to come. In the short history of online forums, un-moderated forums have always outperformed moderated ones. They attract more readers and more posters. Thus not interfering with the comments is not only principled - its profitable.

Well said rstuart

^^^^

Clive Hamilton may well be right about the number of climate-sceptic articles and the overall bias of OLO. But is there a widely read newspaper, journal, online forum, or other major debating/information medium that isn’t biased?

Some sort of bias is inevitable in a forum like this that deals with such a wide range of material.

Is the presence of articles that run counter to majority opinion actually a bias anyway? Such articles spur lots of comments and debate, whereas articles that most of us can agree with often hardly get a response.

OK, so his expression of concern about the presence of bias on OLO is useful in helping to keep the management team honest and constantly striving to uphold the sacred balance. I guess his threat to quit contributing to the forum is also useful in this way.

But Australia needs him to stay with OLO.

I’ve been a great supporter of Clive for years, in regards to population and sustainability issues in particular. He is one of the country’s most eminent environmental commentators. OLO needs him. And the future of Australia needs his articles to be regularly presented on this widely read forum.

It's obvious that the author of this article
feels very strongly that the standard of
'On Line Opinion,' has dropped - regarding
topics like climate change. He feels that there
is a bias with which he doesn't agree.

Fair enough. That's his right.

He can pull out from contributing,
if he so chooses.

However, he can't complain about not being
fairly treated by Graham Young. After all the author
has been given the opportunity to vent his spleen
in this article. Which Graham did not have to grant
him.

It's a pity that someone, who's obviously intelligent,
like Mr Hamilton, can't see the importance of continuing
to present his arguments on an open Forum such as this.
Reading all sides on any topic has value. Why pull out -
simply because there are conflicting views with which you
don't agree? Argue your case instead.

It is a sad demise for 'On Line Opinion,' when people
who have something to say, turn and leave, because of
differing points of view. People who have the arrogance to
think that theirs is the one without flaws.

Sad indeed.

Clive

Reading nonsense from the denialists is a pain. But it hones our ability to argue against them.

Hunt up the articles in favour of man made climate change. Refer them to OLO. Contribute our own articles and views.

The debate is political as well as scientific, and will become more political as the cost of climate change under capitalism increases.

OLO may well be captured by denialists. That is not a reason to leave these pages solely to them.

It took some time for the link between smoking and cancer to become accepted in the mind of the populace. Steady argument and debate convinced the public of the truth of the link. That is what is needed in the GW discussion, Clive.

Because this debate is still in its early stages for the general public, it is imperative to allow the denialists the opportunity to expose their fake science and propaganda to the blow torch of analysis, including from you, Clive.

Once the general public accepts that the denialists are the modern day flat earthers then there will be little demand for their articles and they will wither on the vine. But the general public will only recognise the truth of man made global warming if you stay in the debate in places like OLO, Clive.

As the usual reactionary posters on this site show, we are still some distance from winning the debate that there is global warming and it is man made.

We must allow the denialists their ability to post rubbish and nonsense so we and others can rebut them and convince the general public.

Interstingly a study released today suggests Australia's targets for reducing green house gas emmissions may in fact be too low.

Clive, we need people of vision like you to make the argument that the costs of addressing global warming will be nothing compared to the costs of the possible destruction of our environement. We need your leadership. Rudd may fail the test. It is up to us. It is to people like you to show leadership, Clive. Don't desert us!

& this bloke is an ethics professor.

There is nothing like hate to cloud someone's judgement.

Obviously Clive Hamilton is very full of just that emotion.

So what, Clive, if the energy industry is spending money in its perceived own interests. How much, mainly public money, has been spent in support of the AGW cause? I think $54 billion, was the latest figure I have seen. And what about the millions Al Gore has made from carbon trading in addition to that from making science fiction movies? And the $250,000 award given by Gore to AGW instigator and alarmist James Hansen? And how many of the IPCC's so-called scientific reviewers were truly independant? Including those various co-authors of Mann who peer-reviewed his paper on the infamous hockey-stick graph, now accepted to be at best meaningless and possibly even fraudulent. There are a lot of skeletons in the IPCC cupboard.

Oh dear, Clive Hamilton.
You will be sadly missed.
I fiound your books "Scorcher" and "Silencing Dissent" (not sure that is the exact title) - but anyway, I found both books to be a wonderful resource - for understanding what went on during the Howard years.

I don't agree that OnLine opinion is biased.
The bias is not in the forum itself, in my opinion, nor in the editing - it is just in the kind of people who choose to publish their articles there.

So - I hope that you reconsider your decision, Mr Hamilton. We need you!

(Meanwhile, I will also admit to being personally disappointed, because OnLine opinion knocked back one of MY articles. Still, the knockback was on editorial, literary sort of grounds, not political.
They wanted something a bit more about current affairs, with some substantiation in facts and figures - not a wandering off into history waffle.
Anyway - this stimulated me to publish it myself - and start a page that doesn't need such a high standard of writing. on http://antinuclearinfo.wordpress.com/ )

So - come back to OnLine opinion, Clive Hamilton. You've got a good standard of writing!
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

clive hamilton is absolutely correct. i'd just say that OLO has not been captured by climate change denialists: it's managed by a climate change denialist. Graham Young's promotion of this pseudo-scientific twaddle has been transparent, relentless and reprehensible. it has also been cartoonish. The best he can come up with to "balance" the solid science is a stream of amateurs and hacks.

the real question is, can one just ignore young's climate fetishism, and deal with the rest of the articles? obviously, my decision doesn't matter a scrap. but clive hamilton's does. and i applaud him for his decision. i applaud him for objecting to OLO's legitimising this nonsense, and for refusing to lend his good name to young's increasingly silly site.

This whole global warming debate is great fun. The best line by far that I have seen relates to the possible purchase of carbon credits from the Chinese. It ran:

"Martin Luther, where are you? They're selling indulgences again!"

There are six things that make me sceptical about global warming.

There are:

1. The imposition of a carbon tax is a great new way for governments to make money. Once a new money pot has been opened, all sorts of opportunists will gather round. Needless to say, I don't believe in governments collecting money.

2. It isn't getting any warmer. The peak temperature year was nearer 1998. I don't know why, but that what I see. Could be due to the low sunspot number.

3. The case for global warming is presented as a MORAL case. I am not interested in morals, I am interested in me and mine. I consider that we are very lucky in Australia to be out of the way and protected by a sea boundary, which may protect us from coming disasters, including millions of refugees, that will try to come here over the next few decades. I expect the navy to sink the boats. As a result, I am VERY suspicious of MORAL cases.

4. I know that what we do in Australia does not matter. What matters is what China and India do, and they will look after themselves.

5. I consider that a lot of the proponents are filled with guilt that we live well while millions are starving. These proponents ignore the population explosion in the third world, which, if not prevented, will nullify any attempts to help them.

6. I cannot see how emissions will continue to increase when oil has peaked and consumption can be expected to decline.

If all this makes me a sceptic, racist, boor or anything else, tough luck.

"Denialists without any scientific qualifications, or irrelevant ones, show no such humility."
Confucius say: man who accuse another of having no humility cannot be trusted to look after the pigs.

Actually it doesnt matter what anyone really says much on any subject.

If its not Word of God its not "in the groove" regarding whats really happening on the planet.

Yahoo...GOD's Wrapping up human history and Jesus the Christ is coming back.

If you dont believe it?

Read Luke chapter 21, Matthew chapter 24 (in support), 2 Timothy chapter 3 and Johns Revelation.
The signs that we are in the endtimes is another good website.

We need to focus on the Returning King...not a world we cannot manage.
Why not invite Jesus in today and get born again?

"Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved"...Romans 10:13.

Clive has long complained about his opinions being silenced, but is attempting to silence those that disagree with him.

Clive needs his own forum where his small group of sychophants can agree with and adore him.

In the robust discussion that is sure to surround the climate change debate, opinions biased by agendas (incl clive's) will continue to sound out.

As most opinions are formed by listening to these debates, there tends to be very little science involved and the arguments sound similar to religious debates where the opinions are faith based and cannot be swayed by rational debate.

As an engineer I am a trained sceptic, and have read enough to know that:
a) climate change is a reality
b) the temperature rise is largely unknown and can be any where from small to large,
c) the effects from temperature change are also not entirely clear and range from good (Finland) to drastic (Africa)
d) The loudest advocates for action on climate change are the ones most opposed to nuclear options.

Anyone who claims they know what is going to happen and have the answers is misleading themselves and others.

This is the first of a series of posts which introduces readers and Clive Hamilton if ever he revisits The Forum, to the substantial body of scientific papers showing that the Sun is largely responsible for the regulation of our climate. Don’t worry Clive, they are safe to read; they are all by expert highly qualified scientists, none of whom are fronts for your enemies. All of whom are dedicated to publishing scientific truths.

Labitzke:
The relatively weak, direct radiative forcing of the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere can lead to a large indirect dynamical response in the lower atmosphere through the modulation of the polar night jet as well as through a change in the Brewer Dobson Circulation.

Based on observations, the results presented demonstrate conclusively the existence of a signal of the 11 year sunspot cycle in the stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures and heights.

Solar activity regulates the Quasi Biennial Oscillation and influences the Arctic Oscillation’s winter-time stratospheric intensity.

Coughlin and Tung:
The atmosphere warms during the solar maximum and cools during solar minimum almost everywhere over the planet. The statistically significant correlation with the solar flux is positive everywhere over the globe implies that, on average, the temperatures increase during solar maxima and decrease with solar minima at all latitudes.

Camp and Tung:
• Earth warms globally by 0.2°K over the 11 year solar cycle.
• The warming is larger over continents than over the oceans.
• The warming over the polar region occurs during late winter and spring. The Arctic warms at treble, the Antarctic at double, the global mean.

Feynman:
There are now many empirical and modelling studies that demonstrate that changes in the solar output are associated with widespread changes in climate. There is considerable evidence that climate variations in response to low frequency solar variations have had major effects on cultures during the last 1,500 years.

The next post will provide the references and additional summaries and references

Clive, you cannot say that all peple who question the theory of man caused climate change are in some way or other paid by some lobby group. I hold physical science qualificatons in my degree and, I believe, have the necessary knowledge to make serious observations about what I read. Most people acknowledge that climate has changed somewhat. The question is whether there is a correlation between man made CO2 injections into the atmosphere and increased global temperatures. When the observed facts don't agree with computer models, then one is entitled to question the conclusions of the people such as youself.

If ONO publishes articles that question opinions such as yours, then I say, good on it.

The Government is proposing an emmisons trading scheme that will hurt many people in Australia. One would need to be confident that it will result in lower global temperatures. Otherwise the whole thing is a just costly con job. My reading of the science is that it is far more likely that "global warming" has been caused by natural factors and has not been man induced. Therefore I applaud ONO for giving space to articles that oppose the current popular theory of man made climate change.

passy made the comment "But it hones our ability to argue against them." - spot on.

Clive you might also like to consider that the denialist arguments will be around regardless of OLO's editorial stance.

What is different here to most places is that the editorial position allows people to debate the issue with minimal editorial inteferance.

This is not a talkback radio show where dissenting views are cut off quickly or taken out of context then cut off. Some of the denialists will disregard whatever evidence is before them, we do see to have an over representation of them but there are also those who who may have doubts and who are far better served having the arguments for and against put to them in the one place.

I don't know Graham's intent or beliefs regarding climate change but I do know from some years of experience on OLO that the editorial approach to differing views is about as good as I've ever seen.

OLO even allows a certain amount of criticism of it's own policies and behaviours to be published on it's site.

Rather than withdrawing, involve yourself in the debates which follow publication of denialist articles. Use your expertise to rebut the points made in favor of denial. You now have an account, use it.

R0bert

Here are additional summaries and the references. Subsequent posts will provide more.

Bronnimann et al:
Our analysis of the relation between solar irradiance variability and zonal mean geopotential height at midlatitudes during the past 82 years reveals an 11 year signal (increasing geopotential height with increasing solar variability) that is consistent with previous studies based on much shorter periods.

Scafetta and West:
Using the complexity-matching effect with a non-equilibrium thermodynamic model to represent the Sun-climate relationship shows that the Sun accounts for 69 per cent of the increase in the Earth’s average temperature since 1900.

REFERENCES:
Bronnimann, S., Ewen, T., Griesser, T. and Jenne, R., 2007. Multidecadal signal of solar variability in the upper troposphere during the 20th Century. A chapter in Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J., Lockwood, M., 2007. Solar variability and Planetary Climates. Space Science Series of the International Space Science Institute Volume 23 Springer; pps 305-317.
Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka Kit, 2006. The Influence of the Solar Cycle and QBO on the Late Winter Stratospheric Polar Vortex. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences in press.
Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka Kit, 2007a. “Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection” Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 34, L14703, doi:10.1029/2007GL030207. It was published online on Wednesday, July 18 2007.
Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka Kit, 2007b. "Solar Cycle Warming at the Earth's Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity"
submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, and published by the University of Washington on Ka Kit Tung’s departmental website, http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
Feynman, J., 2007. Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture? Advances in Space Research doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.077.
Labitzke, K., 2007. Effects of the solar cycle on the Earth’s atmosphere. Chapter 18 in Kamide, Y. and Chian, A. (Eds.) 2007. Handbook of the Solar Terrestrial Environment. Springer; pps445-466.

Clive, you said "The reactions to my piece confirm that On-Line Opinion has become a magnet for climate sceptics." Do you actually read the comments here, or simply assume what people’s opinions are from your own prejudices? Most of the comments from people who are not AGW sceptics – and there are many – disapprove of your decision to withdraw from these forums.

Christina Mac reminds us that Clive co-authored a book called “Silencing Dissent.” What a pity it turns out that that’s exactly what he wants to do

OLO is obviously getting some traction, otherwise the mediocrats wouldn't be trying to take it down. But in terms of the incoherent drivel that has come from poor old Clive's mouth over the past decade, his decision to crawl back under his rock would have to be one of the most sensible things he has ever said.

Just stop drinking your bong water, Clive, things will make a bit more sense if you do.

Journalists and/or those who write for online opinion may not be qualified climatologists or qualified anything else, but what we do do - and should do more of - is spot vested interest groups bearing dodgy forecasts. Guess what, one has been spotted. We are also quite use to assessing arguments - being they political, economic or scientific in part by getting around and asking people, and in part by using good old fashioned common sense.

The problem with the hypothesis that ongoing climate change has been affected by industrial gases, is that temperatures have not increased for a decade and more and are now going down. The tragedy of some - but by no means all - climate scientists is that they refuse to acknowledge this basic point.

And that basic point should make Clive Hamilton more careful about making ideological stands. There are very good reasons why the scepticism continues, and it is by no means limited to online opinion. To object because this site is one of many that continues to question environmental dogma, is ridiculous.

I have just joined the forum for the express purpose of responding to Dr. Hamilton's article entitled "The Sad Demise of 'On Line Opinion' but in the process of writing a response that addresses his many points I find that I have greatly exceeded the 350 word limit -- a limit I was not aware of until after I finished my note.

Dr. Hamilton, in the interest of intellectual honesty I hope you will drop me a line with an email address that I can forward this detailed note to you (and anyone else who may be interested). I promise that you will not be disappointed and I think you may change your opinion after reading some of the references.

You have raised many issues but I believe that they are all demonstrably false and I have spent some significant effort in trying to address them for your benefit as well as anyone else with an interest in the topic.

My background is as a research physicist for 30 years, involved in remote sensing of the atmosphere, but I have tried to address your issues with references that are understandable by someone without significant training in the science of climatology.

I hope you will drop me a note at my email address so that I can forward my response to your article directly to you (and anyone else who may be interested).

My address is j.w.brosnahan (at) gmail.com where the (at) is replaced with the @ symbol of course. (Does this really confuse the little spam robots who search for addresses?)

With All Due Respect -- John Brosnahan USA

I'm shocked that someone like Clive Hamilton would even appear let alone care so much about a sad little backwater of the interent as OLO. Actually, after that article, maybe not so much...

Sorry to see yet another reasonable voice decide not to contribute to Online Opinion any more.
The OLO readership still thinks cheap petrol and plentiful water will be available in our cities so we can water our lawns at at 4pm on a hot summer's afternoon if we just vote the Liberals in.

Clive Hamilton's reaction to an attack on his faith was perfectly predictable. If we map "Climate Change" against other religions his behaviour becomes understandable. Faith is a belief held without evidence. The scientific method, a loose collection of procedures of great variety, is based on precisely the opposite concept, as famously declared by Thomas Henry Huxley:

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin".

Believers. like Hamilton, like to use the name of science, but they don't like its methods. They promote slogans such “The science is settled” when real scientists know that science is never settled. Religions vary in their treatment of unbelievers, which ranges from disregard to slaughter. In silencing unbelievers, the new religion of "Climate Change" relies at present on verbal assault and character assassination, though there are those, again like Hamilton, who would go further. They call the infidels “deniers” – a cheap and quite despicable verbal reference to the Holocaust. There is a sustained campaign to deny the deniers any sort of public platform for their views. Fortunately, for the rational members of society, but increasingly unfortunately, for Hamilton and his ilk, their only comfortable option is to worship among like minded believers.

During my life "Bell Ringers" like Mr Hamilton have warned that I would die in a Nuclear War, starve through the inability of mankind to produce enough food, freeze in the coming ice age, be caught in an Asian communist Domino, have to walk everywhere in the first oil crisis, die from various pandemics, lose everything because a programmer wanted to save space in a program pre 2000.
I think I have every right to be skeptical when the Western Govt's of the World are about to place a HUGE burden on their people.
I don't want to be in a situation were we "found the cure, but it killed the patient"
The risk of implementing CO2 emmission control (whether it will be effective or not being unknown) is great to the current economic systems that Clive plainly does not like.
Surely we have every right to debate this important issue.
Or Clive can get the Iemma Govt to promulgate some new laws to stifle free speech with regard to climate change.

I saw this article this morning when it had 5 posts, and now has nearly 50. Just about everything I might have said has been said many times.

But here is something that has not been said, at least on this thread. You do NOT have to write for a refereed journal to ask questions policies that are said to have been based on scientific papers. The refereed-paper defence is an empty one.

The logic of the debate is that one actor (the IPCC plus supporters) has said that on the evidence and on its models, things are going to be very grim because we humans are the problem. Things need to be done at once, says the IPCC.

The other actor (in this case, me, and those who are agnostic, sceptical or critical) replies like this:

(1) why are you sure that you can measure small changes in temperature accurately?
(2) why are you so confident about your models and their forecasts when you have neither accurate data nor known interactions between the variables in many cases?
(3) why is your conversion factor (a doubling of CO2 leads to a 3 degree increase in temperature) the correct one when there are several other possibilities, all apparently with equal face validity?
(4) have you noticed that, contra prediction, the argus measures show no sign that the seas are warming?
(5) how do you explain the plateauing of temperature since 1998 despite a continuing increase in CO2 concentrations?
(6) why do you not release information that would allow others to see for themselves?

And so on. These questions are worth answering, because in default of good answers I see no reason to support a carbon tax or anything like it. Why should anyone?

Spot on Dr Aitkin.

When a leading academic such as Hamilton carries on in this petulant and anti intellectual way its not suprising that many people question the authenticity and indeed integrity of the whole AGW game.

..and he has qualifications in ethics and mathematics? ..the mind boggles.

'Billie' suggests that OLO readers think that if they voted Liberal water would become plentiful and petrol cheap. I challenge the readership to quote to me any OLO comment ever that has shown such a combination of stupidity and arrogance.

Let's face it, OLO standards are getting poorer by the day.

Evidence? Look at the hysterical bully-pack that came out of the trees today when Hamilton dared to criticise OLO and signalled his intention to not offer any more articles. Only a handful supported his personal right to withdraw and publish elsewhere.

Some even accused him of using his dissent as a form of censorship while shouting their own dissent.

Let's be truthful: there are serious problems with OLO.

1. It's articles are only occasionally brilliant, most are mediocre, some are downright atrocious. There seems to be no clear editorial standard for selection of what gets a run.

2. On too many occasions the authors' relevant credentials are not clearly stated and a high proportion of authors are proselytisers using OLO as a free forum for their ideological claptrap without signalling their affiliations.

3. A few favoured authors turn up with predictable regularity although they have nothing new or important to say.

4. Many of the OLO respondents are crude and vitriolic and bully those with a different view, and there seems no editorial control or protection for those who are vilified and abused.

5. More than enough OLO respondents are inarticulate ranters unable to follow an argument or have any appreciation of the fact that opinions are better if they are logically presented and supported with some relevant evidence.

Like Hamilton, I am bemused that the commercial sponsors of OLO are so patient.

I expect to be abused for having my say today. Sadly, that's the nature of OLO.

I feel that the attitude displayed by Clive Hamilton towards opinions contrary to his own is a further illustration of the decline in the quality of intellectual thought in some Australian universities.

I really don't know why Spikey and others who hate free speech don't go and find a forum that confirms all their prejudices

"Denialists have conspicuously failed to generate contrary evidence that can be published in refereed journals".

No, they come here instead. The topic of AGW has an immense capacity for obfuscation and don't the punters love it!

Hellooow Perseus

Finally peeped out from under your rock eh, after a three month hibernation from OLO. It is the middle of winter. Go back to sleep for another three months.

But first, how about giving us an example or two or Clive Hamilton’s ”incoherent drivel”.

I basically agree with the first response to Hamilton's pathetic piece.

One should have faith in liberal democracy and people to separate truth from fiction.

While I share Hamilton's concern about the environment, every person has a right to offer an opinion to help prompt debate.

Remember, One Nation captured much more support that those denying climate change, yet debate saw that party's relatively quick demise.

Clive, put away the hanky and get on with arguing your case.

Pathetic. I'm concerned about the sad demise of climate science due to the politicised UN IPCC, which is using unfounded computer modelled climate alarmism to further its wealth redistribution agenda, by exerting influence over the economies and energy policies of developed countries.

True science is about testing the results and hypotheses of other sceintists to destruction - it's about being sceptical - not about protecting a potentially flawed hypothesis from a thorough examination by ending debate and name calling.

BTW - Clive who?

Clive,

My posit is that you did not use your final article present a case pertaining to climate, rather to critique OLO and Graham.

Many of the acadmic readers will have research degrees and could understand quantative data, if you presented said data, here; but, I see none of this in your article.

I see a conclusion: But no model.

Personally, I feel with climate change and other matters, one needs to adopt a dual heuristic and, neither side should sit on their laurels. Both parties need to develop a null hypothesis.

I have seen no problems with "balance", regarding debate, in the theatres of my interest, here, at OLO.

Regards,

O

Crikey! What a whinger.

I have some training in climatology and peripherally work in the field yet I remain a sceptic about "global warming". Climate change, yes, that is self-evident, but whether any changes are anthropogenic is debatable. The Earth hasn't warmed since 1998 yet CO2 levels continue to rise.

While I agree that OLO essay posters should show their corporate affiliations, that also goes for "climate alarmists" pushing their barrows.

Mr Hamilton, a climate sceptic is entitled to freedom of speech. Do you deny freedom of speech?

Clive,

I just re-read your post and link. Honestly, friend, you should put your argument in terms of Type I and Type II error. Deal with the content, not the politics.

Present a supported posit.

Cheers,

O.

Clive Hamilton. Please don't quit now particularly since this forum has a surplus of authors denying anthropogenic climate change and it appears that some will stoop to anything to dupe a gullible public:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

It is with some concern that skeptics refuse to debate the state of our seriously desecrated eco-systems in Australia. Several major rivers and lakes are now on life support. Parts of Australia are now officially listed as one of the planet's worst environmental hotspots. Of course, mitigating man-made carbon-based pollution, would also mitigate the profits in the “free” market. However, do these people truly believe the status quo guarantees human survival?

I too have had an article rejected by Graham. “It's rubbish,” he said when I queried his decision.

Many of us do not regard electromagnetic radiation as “rubbish” and after reading scientist, Rosalie Bertell’s “Planet Earth,” and her theories on EMR, I became interested in NASA’s HAARP project and the atmospheric and ionospheric modification experiments.

Normally electromagnetic energy comes to Earth daily from the sun. Humans however, have reversed this process and deliberately used electromagnetic waves to probe the upper atmosphere and the inner structure of the Earth. That man is purposely heating the ionosphere is surely worthy of debate?

http://www.eastlundscience.com/PATENTS.html

U. S. Patent No. 4,686,605, 1987. "Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's Magnetosphere"

U. S. Patent No. 4,712,155, 1988. "Method and Apparatus for Creating an Artificial Electron Cyclotron Heating Region of Plasma"

It appears this article has enticed several newcomers to OLO. Welcome. A cursory glance tells me that no fewer than 10 new members have seen fit to engage in their first debate here, bouyed by the prospect of putting the boots into Clive Hamilton. Do we put this down to coincidence or do we have a few stooges in our midst? Nevertheless, very interesting – yes indeed!

Walking the streets of any city in Australia and you will find most people accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

Read through OLO posts and you will find the majority of postings (witness the responses to Clive's article) hedge towards climate scepticism.

Like a small residual bacterial colony, the site seems to have become a safe refuge for declining numbers of sceptics, so they can reinforce each other's beliefs. This bacterial enclave may be accidental perhaps, or OLO may have invited it through incipient bias, it doesn't really matter which is the case.

I do go to this site to see how the 'other 1 percent' thinks, but for good solid climate science (for and against) there are many better offerings elsewhere.

Clive Hamilton, as a busy analyst, could do much better with his valuable time than to feed information into this venue.

In defence of OLO it may have a right leaning bias, but on most other issues it does offer a much more balanced attitude.

To associate the skeptics of climate change with the repudiators of the link between AIDS and the HIV virus and the conspiracy theories of 9/11 and the “Larouche delusions” shows clearly that Clive Hamilton rests his case on an intellectually very weak reed. Further, to presume, as he does, that all skeptics are deliberate “denialists” lacking scientific arguments and considering them to be “irreverent” to the scientific evidence presented by the supporters of climate change, like him, is to put the hood of the Inquisitor on his head. The Spanish Inquisition is alive and well in the censorious strictures of Clive Hamilton.
http://avant-gardestrategies.typepad.com

POSIT: I don't agree with the arguments and bias being perpetrated so I will decline to engage in the debate.

This seems to be a defeatist, they'll never learn, intellectual elitist position.

I would have expected better from Clive, just like I expected better from Robyn Williams.

If there is bias, then keep pointing it out so dummies like me can investigate further and make a well founded opinion - albeit incorrect - anyway I'm off to check out 'the rubbish' about NASA’s HAARP project ... woohoo!

Wow talk about the vitriol towards this man.

Regardless of your position on his arguments in this article, the name-calling and insults from the so-called AGW-denialists (i.e. science rationalists) towards the so-called emotional and irrational AGW -supporters is palpable.

I thought the AGW-denialists were supposed to be the un-emotional folk, guess we were wrong on that account. Looks like emotion and quasi-religious haranguing works both ways.

PS were there any other articles on OLO today?

Ericc “Comparing global warming with the Y2K bug or the hole in the ozone layer or the threat of a mini ice age is inappropriate.”

How inappropriately ‘inappropriate’?

Y2K was a hoot, made money out of it.

Ozone holes, an entire generation covered up in fear of being well done, when all they wanted was medium-rare on the beach.

A mini-ice-age and some even claim it is partially due to AGW.

Is that a bit of a bet each way or is it someone screaming out, pathetically, as the last of their finger nails snaps off and they fall into the abyss of incredulity?

As to “CO2 was 290ppm now its 390ppm and we are not slowing down for a second.”

Displacing what?

Any proven consequences (I am no longer taking theories, there are too many of them and are too discredited by their authors exaggerations)?

What happened after Krakatau or Mount St Helens volcanic eruptions?

Did those events alter global composition of the atmosphere?

Whilst I believe we should do everything to avoid pollution and industrial excesses, the zealots of climate change should recognise the biggest cause to AGW is the number of “A”s contributing to the problem.

Fix the population issue and all the problems disappear, without the need for the “socialism by stealth” of a carbon emissions tax.

I notice one claiming to be a scientist commenting on the “discernment on the part of the editor”.

If “scientists” expect to be the only ones to be heard on the topic they profess to being expert in, I find it hypocritical for said scientists to disparage the journalistic pursuits of the editors, as they pursue a craft which the scientists are, generally, ill-trained to execute.

As neither a scientist or journalist you can think of me what you will but

As a tax payer, I consider the impending consequence of supposed AGW and the imposition of an entirely artificial carbon trading tax

something which I insist on having a serious say

Rather than having my view railroaded by a bunch of (scientific or otherwise) egos on steroids.

Gecko: "Walking the streets of any city in Australia and you will find most people accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change."

The average bloke or blokette on the average street would not know didley squat about climate change or "global warming". To them, a hot day in summer is incontrovertible proof that the world will end soon, while a strangely cold day in any season has people looking at each other in astonishment.

The problem with "anthropogenic climate change" is that the evidence is far from "overwhelming", it's more along the lines of guesswork.

Hamilton mentions the word "denialist" (which is not even a word) 9 times in a total of 623 words. This childish attempt to link genuine scientific doubts about the computer models on which every single IPCC prediction rests to attempts to deny the existence of the Nazi inspired holocaust is pitiful in its logicality: on the one hand the holocaust is a historical fact of the past whereas on the other is PREDICTIONS about the future. The same logic applies to AIDS, tobacco and other despicable and malicious associations that the warmaholics have tried to associate genuine scientific debate about climate computer models with.

But I leave the best of Hamilton's own words for last:

"There I also explain why I do not presume to engage in arguments about climate science because I do not have the expertise to do so without making a fool of myself."

Prof Jon Jenkins

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Media Release 2nd of July 2008

Craig Isherwood, National Secretary
PO Box 376, COBURG, VIC, 3058
Phone: 03 9354 0544 Fax: 03 9354 0166
Email: cec@cecaust.com.au
Website: http://www.cecaust.com.au

Garnaut’s prescription to shut down Australian economy ignores 31,000 scientists

When the lying news media report the release of mining tycoon Ross Garnaut’s final climate change report this Friday, don’t expect them to admit that, to date, 31,072 scientists (9,021 with PhDs) have signed the Global Warming Petition Project [ http://www.petitionproject.org/ ] debunking the theory of manmade global warming.

However, the fact is that you’ll be hard-pressed to find many scientists subscribing to the theory pushed by Al Gore et al., despite any media perception to the contrary.

Al Gore has not bothered to counter this petition, probably because he knows most scientists around the world won’t buy his trashy pseudoscience. And besides, Gore and his ilk only require a few “scientists” to play the game, parroting their lines to a complicit media.

Carbon dioxide accounts for a mere 0.038% of the atmosphere by volume and as any geologist would know, 450 million years ago, when carbon dioxide levels were ten times higher than today (0.38%), the earth went into an ice age. More carbon dioxide should actually be welcomed—it will boost plant growth as numerous studies show.

That China has just had the coldest winter in a hundred years and that official satellite records show average global temperatures this year have been below the long-term average doesn’t seem to faze the global warming evangelists.

[cont..]

Wittingly or not, green zealots like Gore are tools of the British financial oligarchy and their big media and corporate interests, who founded the green movement and fund environmental campaigns for population control.

In the face of rising petrol prices, a housing crisis and global economic turmoil, will Garnaut be callous enough to push for savage carbon cuts while ignoring 31,000 scientists? Chris Richardson, director of Access Economics has already given a taste for the pain to come: “The whole idea of carbon pricing is that if it doesn’t hurt it won’t work,” he told Canberra ABC radio on July 1.

How many extra people will catch pneumonia because they can’t afford the winter heating bill? How many sick and elderly people will die from heat exhaustion because they can’t afford to run their air-conditioner in summer? How many extra businesses will collapse with the rising costs? How many extra people will be victims of crime, given the economic turmoil? How many farmers will remain producing food? How much will the cost of food rise and will food shortages leave thousands starving to death?

And in a collapsing economy, the irony is that our environment will suffer. Evidence abounds in any third world nation—smell the stench of the air. Poor people drive old smoky vehicles, a poor nation does not have the resources to invest into the latest clean technology or basic infrastructure, and conditions exist for filth and disease as people struggle for mere existence.

This genocidal carbon policy must be stopped—even at this late stage—if not, look forward to a grim future.

For more information on the fraud of man-made Global Warming, click here. [ http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html ]
To receive a mailed copy of the April/May 2007 New Citizen, “Global Warming is a Fraud!”, click here. [ http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?id=free_GW_NC.html ]

Runner posted this doozy: "I really don't know why Spikey and others who hate free speech don't go and find a forum that confirms all their prejudices."

If it's not too much bother, runner, would you show OLO readers where I expressed a dislike for free speech. I thought I was making exactly the opposite case by asserting that OLO needs to lift its game.

As I said earlier today: "I expect to be abused for having my say today." But I didn't expect that having your say could be interpreted as hating free speech. Nor did I anticipate being told to shut up in the name of free speech!

You see what I mean by OLO needing to improve its standards?

Wow. I don't think I've seen so many comments generated by an article in such a short time since I've been reading OLO articles.

We should be grateful to Clive Hamilton for explaining to us why he's "picked a fight" with On Line Opinion. I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing that the overall quality of OLO articles has declined lately, indeed it's a topic that is increasingly mentioned in forum discussions across a wide range of topics.

Having said that, I think that Graham and his team do something quite unique here. While I've inadvertently fallen foul of Graham's interpretation of "flaming" more than once, overall I'm happy to take it on the chin and continue to interact on this site with people whose worldviews are always interesting, if occasionally a bit scary :)

More importantly, Hamilton does point to a potentially serious shortcoming of OLO's increasingly banal and pedestrian provenance. If respected and authoritative thinkers like Hamilton withdraw their honorary support of OLO in protest at its editorial bent, who's going to read and participate in it other than tendentious nutters and wingnuts?

Pollution stinks. Debate over.

"This genocidal carbon policy must be stopped—even at this late stage—if not, look forward to a grim future."

Touche Goat. The genocidal carbon policy has rampaged on for thousands of years commencing with farming and it drastically accelerated with the Industrial Revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. Pollutant carbon emitting industries are now completely out of control.

And why is this so? Elementary my dear goat. The entire West has hypocritically legislated for Acts to protect the environment and every nation - every government has violated those Acts. The big end of town - the eco-vandals pump it out by the truck-loads whilst you threaten citizens with the prospect of increased living costs to prop these vandals up.

The "Polluter Pays" principle and the "Precautionary Principle" are included in those Acts. The objectives are "to protect the environment by preventing, controlling and abating pollution."

These conditions have been totally ignored - a complete joke while the big end of town and aligned governments continue to trash our fragile environment and place this country at increased risk.

Dr Arthur Robinson who instigated the petition you provided Goat,is head of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) which describes itself as “a small research institute” that studies “biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging.” Huh?

He is regarded as an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research.

The OISM would have remained very obscure, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive “scientists’ petition” on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences” and now they're at it again. So what took them so long this time Goat?

Unfortunately there are a myriad of current signatories which have no post nominal titles? Are they incapable of following simple instructions or simply bereft of the necessary qualifications?

Ahem! Time will surely tell.

http://www.desmogblog.com/national-post-ducks-correction-repeats-slander

"At the request of Graham Young I am putting my arguments into this last piece for On Line Opinion."

Maybe it is the idealist in me but I am going to choose to believe Graham that you did this for all the right (not Right) reasons since it was pretty obvious with the large number of vitriolic climate change sceptics among the forum members that Mr Hamilton was going to cop a pasting.

I also choose to believe that you regret the withdrawal of Mr Hamilton as a contributor.

Normally these things would have gone without saying but your Robyn Williams episode was not your finest moment, the repercussions of which are obviously still manifesting themselves.

Please tread a little more carefully because the demise of 'On Line Opinion' would be sad indeed.

Don't worry Clive. Lucky for us no one takes "Climate Change Sceptics" seriously anyway.

Don Aitkens piece was seen for what it was. A laymans uneducated perspective.
Graham Youngs emotional piece about Robin Williams presenting style provided an insight into the mind of the owner of this webpage.

For anyone in the field of climate science the argument was over a long time ago. Now it's all about "what next".
The public too has been convinced. It is a waste of breath to stand toe to toe arguing whether AGW is happening or not. Time to look at those with the capacity to make change and those elected on a platform of change and make sure they do it.

So, Viking 13, the public is too dumb to understand climate change. And the climate scientists have got it all wrong. That leaves yourself as the virtual font of wisdom.

With respect, maybe you could change your pen name to 'God'.

Hamilton has exerted his own right to free speech. These columns should perhaps be preserved as a cosy meeting place for climate sceptics to exchange their views - and there is nothing wrong with that - so long as the site transparently advertises itself as just that rather than purporting to be a broad debating medium.

Just as some pubs identify themselves as a special niche where a local interest group can congregate (football club, gays, artists) OLO can serve that purpose for climate denialists, and that's fine too.

Out of curiosity, others can look in, like looking into a fishbowl, to observe the internal culture. But it's not all that sensible to go in and pick a serious fight with the devotees, just let them enjoy their own democratic space.

Clive,
I don’t think I have seen an OLO article that has attracted so many responses in its first 24 hrs, well done!

In that 24hrs, the majority of opinions exemplify you were right in your assessment. I have no doubt Graham Young’s response will be just as perverse.

You know real leaders the world over are addressing the issues of global warming. Your pearls have been cast to them and to the next generation of decision makers … this is important.

Do not concern yourself with OLO or its chief editorial predisposition.

I have been following the global warming/climate change debate seriously for almost 2 years. It did not take long to see that the theory of AGW had issues. Trying to raise these issues to AGW supporters in order to understand their thinking, though, resulted only in rebuke and disdain. No wonder AGW skeptics have little respect for their counterparts.

After the Hockey Stick was proven invalid, AGW supporters stood steadfast. After the Vostock ice core showed that CO2 levels lagged temperature rise by 800 years (on the average), they refused to be shaken. As climate modelers have redefined their craft from climate prediction, to projection, to mere scenario, their faith has not waned. Even in the face of the latest cooling period, AGW supporters confidently say, "Just wait 'til next decade."

For the most part, I have given up trying to speak to AGW supporters because they refuse to open their minds to imperical data that supports alternate theories of how the biosphere works. Almost daily, scientific progress is being made about how the biosphere actually works. Unfortunately, because of their simple view of a complex system, AGW supporters are contributing little to it.

Clive, I'm a little surprised you would cease to contribute to a forum you believed was biased against you. What better avenue to get your thoughts across to those who need to change their stance(in your view). I find preaching to the converted a bit of a waste.
The validity of AGW arguments should be so convincing that people should have no doubts. What does the number of "denialists" say about those arguments?

regards, dedicated fence-sitter.

Like Pauline Hanson the cult of global warming has had its finest hour as people's pockets are now being hit with the implications of swallowing half truths. No substance to the doctrines of the cult has been found (great post septshadow). The politics will continue for a while but hopefully feeding the poor, defending the unborn and other debates of substance will take its rightful place. Most people are sick of pathetic prophecies. They would of been stoned long ago if they were prophets in Israel.

On the one hand I too am bothered by Graham Young’s contradictory role as publisher of this site, and widely articulated commentator on many of the issues published here. I’m also a little disturbed that he occupies the role of comments-gatekeeper, though I’ve seen little evidence that this power is misused.

On the other hand I note that after Susan Prior stated http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7373#113662 that the editorial decisions are made by her, not by Graham, she also confirmed that there is a bias towards the sceptics in climate change articles published on OLO http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7373#113671

With about 2700 authors, and 6700 registered users, OLO has already been a significant contributor to public discourse in this country. Whether or not the owners of OLO choose it, with this level of importance comes a responsibility to be fair and even-handed in the opinions they present. By their own admission, on the issue of climate change this has not been the case.

There’s room for them to lift their game, but let’s not forget that this is a lively and important discussion space, in the evolving world of web publishing.

Clive's article is interesting for many reasons. My first post in this thread attempted to raise the point that for Clive it was an ethical issue to not now continue to contribute to OLO. i.e. His indignation resulting from some contradictory conclusions becomes his perceived ethical dilemma. He attempts to explain these but his only recourse to reconcile the situation is to preemptively attack the situation then pull down the shutters.

His ethical dilemma may not be a paradox in the strict sense but his "exclusively proven" belief in belief alarmist AGW certainly is a true blue paradox. Because AGW presents humanity/life as its core alarmist concern it then denies itself with a war on carbon dioxide defining it as a dangerous pollutant. The contradiction here is apparent to all reasonable people but it seems if you have been unfortunately infected with the AGW mind virus your insistence will be that culture exists in a realm that is separate from our biology.

i.e. This then becomes an all consuming transcendental world which is exceptionalism at its best for in relationship to the planet, this mindset simply sees humanity more like a parasite living on a host, rather than an organism in a symbiotic, and thus mutually beneficial, relationship with an infinite environment.

I would ask Clive if he has the capacity to seek to resolve his obvious ethical dilemma. It stands to reason that when you see a glaring paradox you should know you have the incorrect initial assumptions most likely skewed with a contradictory cognitive bias. Perhaps some contributers here may offer their thoughts to help disinfect poor Clive.

"If respected and authoritative thinkers like Hamilton withdraw their honorary support of OLO in protest at its editorial bent, who's going to read and participate in it other than tendentious nutters and wingnuts?"

This is my concern too. I've felt for a while that the ratio of ranters compared to serious contributors on OLO has been steadily increasing. This thread has only confirmed my worst fears.

The problem is, Graham, that your informed writers and posters are gradually falling away and the site is being taken over by the "tendentious nutters and wingnuts" as CJ has quite correctly coined them. Your increasingly skewed selection of material has encouraged them to an extent quite disproportionate to their capacity to usefully influence debate. I more often than not now find myself scrolling through more than I'm reading, which definitely wasn't the case when I first joined three years ago.

I'm all for free speech but it carries a responsibility. The responsibility in this debate is to future generations. It wouldn't have mattered how many years, or centuries even, the flat earthers argued their case. The length of time it took to convince people the earth was indeed round didn't affect the overall course of history one way or the other. The climate change debate is very different. We don't have the luxury of time to sit around and convince the doubters. The debate needs to move forward and concentrate on how best to manage the situation. That's the debate that OLO hasn't really caught up with yet.

It's been a great site, Graham, and is a real credit to your initiative and hard work. But the rot is setting in and needs attention.

Dear jpw2040,
No no no!
I think you have misread my comment completely. Look again! If you look carefully you will see that I am quoting from NorthWestShelf's previous comment on that thread. I was clarifying a point I had made previously.
Susan P - editor

Oh dear, sorry Susan. I missed the quotation mark.

I withdraw the assertion that you have confirmed a bias towards climate-change sceptics in published OLO articles.

Apologies to all for the misleading claim.

what Bronwyn said CJ said.

and jpw2040, you needn't apologize too profusely: the bias is blatant. susan and graham quietly and smugly pretending otherwise hardly adds to their credit.

The facts are no one knows for ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what the outcome of introducing CO2 in such large quantity into the earth's atmosphere will do for the climate, This is because it has never happened before.

Scientist can guess what would happen, for example CO2 will trap heat in, and will at the same time prevent heat from the sun from getting in.

But it is like trying to predict what human will look like in 500 years? We have some evidence we will continue to grow taller, but we do not know what other conditions will change to make that not happen

There had been many incidence in the history of the planet where the planet had heated up or cooled considerably, and noone can explain how/why it happened, scientist and archeaologist thinks vocanic eruptions and Comet might happen, but again there is no ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY

That is why we do need debate, that is why we gets the alarmist's view, as well as the denialist's view. This is just science, and how science progresses scientists had been arguing for thousands of year, so this is nothing new.

At one stage the world was flat, if scientist does not allow debate on the subject, the world might still be flat, and it was not a scientist who proved the world is round. Debate is science, for Clive to not let people with a different view to him from speaking out on the subject is unfair.

On Line Opinion is, as it declares itself to be, “Opinion”

It does not condition that its “opinions” are restricted to

“Only those with proven scientific credentials” or
“Only those who hold a particular viewpoint”

I find it incredibly childish that, following a deluge of once “topical” articles

“In promotion of a view which endorses AGW”

Now that “Topicality” has swung, like the pendulum always does,

We have people like Clive Hamilton doing a dummy-spit and his acolytes whining on how the standards of OLO have supposedly declined because their one time omnipotence and monopoly of view is goes longer unchallenged - Oh how the cardinals must have felt to threatened by Galileo.

Upon reflection I recall several months ago commenting on the swing of the pendulum in the “nature of articles” and the affirmative response I received at the time from Susan, that things did so swing and “topicality”, as it is reflected in availability of product, naturally influenced the representation of articles.

No point in having an opinion sheet which does not reflect topical issues!

I also recall asking, several years ago why the list of articles did not include anything from such journalistic luminaries as Andrew Bolt and was advised, AB expects ‘pay’ for his contributions (so fair enough I guess the budgets of OLO do not extend to buying articles and the “On Line Opinion” content is restricted to those who are prepared to offer what they have for free).

I guess as we swing round to content quality, the best way for the standards of OLO to improve would be for those who find the whole idea of having to defend their declared viewpoint too hard or difficult is to simply stop posting and leave the expression of opinions to those who are prepared to accept and stand behind the challenge and testing of their view.

That way we will atleast no longer have to suffer the whining and hubris of the scientific and other elitist wannabes

Col,

'elitist wannabes'.

Oh, Oh, can I pick them out and name them!? ;-)

Accepting that I'm probably... scratch that.. definately, in the camp of CJ's 'tendentious nutters and wingnuts'.

I'm in the group that as a layman watching the debate thinks there is enough evidence for man made (or contributed to) global warning for the issue to be taken seriously.

I doubt that the answer lies in yet another tax paid to the government which they won't be able to afford to give up when it becomes irrelevant (petrol parity pricing anybody) nor do I think making peoples lives harder economically will help us to make better choices environmentally. People who are pushed are more likely to take shortcuts (filament lamps are a lot cheaper than the low energy ones).

I do find the reaction to global warming deniars and sceptics worrying. The kind of reaction I've seen normally indicates to me people who are not confident of their case rather than those who know they have nothing to fear from open debate.

I think we have at least two kinds of deniars/sceptics - those who just are not interested in considering anything which goes against existing beliefs (if it's not in the bible or on a conspiracy web site I don't believe it) and those who have looked at the evidence and are not convinced. We should not confuse the two.

OLO's standards should not be harmed by the latter (enhanced in fact) and I can't think of a viable way around the former. I suspect that those positions are mirrored in the acceptor/believer camp.

For myself I've only look at the summary material so maybe both sides do have a third grouping, those who are willing to consider evidence but who lack the background to come to trully informed decisions about this.

R0bert

Well done Clive - this must be a record.

I think the common thread that runs through the comments is FEAR.

FEAR that the Golem of our glorious industrial consumer society has leprosy.

FEAR that the extremities are obviously beginning to fester.

FEAR of the amputations that must be performed.

Everyone wants to be a surgeon. No-one admits to being a problem. See how they run!

*

HIV-like, the spread of Environmental Leprosy was transmitted by contact with unconstrained global economics. Thanks to high priests like my old hero Pope Keating, the condoms were peeled off - and boy - didn't we have an orgy of growth!

So now we are outgrowing the limits to our present existence. Peak Oil is happening now. Peak People was exceeded decades ago. Peak air and clean water are just a distant memory. I fear the extent of the Peak Denial, Hubris and Greed that is yet to follow, if this thread is anything to go by.

Our atmosphere is no more substantial than the filmy plastic bag we tried to take our newly purchased planet home in. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Our gravity-defying excrement floats away out of sight and irrational mind. Look not to your instep for a stinking mess. You're soakin' in it.

^

I'll give an elephant stamp to anyone who watches this short video through to the end.

Nandor Says Farewell:

http://www.greens.org.nz/node/18811

- enjoy!

Further to previous posts, this paper by one of the world’s experts on the time series analysis of hydrological phenomena falsifies IPCC climate models. It is not about the role of the Sun. As the limit is 2 X 350 words per day, I will have quite a few more posts to come on this matter.
Koutsoyiannis:
Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series.
Abstract
As falsifiability is an essential element of science (Karl Popper), many have disputed the scientific basis of climatic predictions on the grounds that they are not falsifiable or verifiable at present. This critique arises from the argument that we need to wait several decades before we may know how reliable the predictions will be. However, elements of falsifiability already exist, given that many of the climatic model outputs contain time series for past periods. In particular, the models of the IPCC Third Assessment Report have projected future climate starting from 1990; thus, there is an 18-year period for which comparison of model outputs and reality is possible. In practice, the climatic model outputs are downscaled to finer spatial scales, and conclusions are drawn for the evolution of regional climates and hydrological regimes; thus, it is essential to make such comparisons on regional scales and point basis rather than on global or hemispheric scales. In this study, we have retrieved temperature and precipitation records, at least 100-year long, from a number of stations worldwide. We have also retrieved a number of climatic model outputs, extracted the time series for the grid points closest to each examined station, and produced a time series for the station location based on best linear estimation. Finally, to assess the reliability of model predictions, we have compared the historical with the model time series using several statistical indicators including long-term variability, from monthly to over a year (climatic) time scales. Based on these analyses, we discuss the usefulness of climatic model future projections (with emphasis on precipitation) from a hydrological perspective, in relationship to a long-term uncertainty framework.
See: http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850

Well - it seems to me that Clive Hamilton has had a very good opportunity to put his case and to highlight what he sees as lack of disclosure by Tom Harris.

I am a bit concerned that the attitude appears to be a demand that OLO restrict its postings to those with whom Clive agrees.

I for one am not convinced that the science is in and have, personally, taken a 'its prudent to prepare' approach. I am certainly not convinced that Clive has proved his own case, so I am a little bit sceptical about his tactic to instead seek to gag those with alternative views.

For all that, I would rather see him continue to argue his case than to take his ball and go home. OLO is hardly demised just because Clive has 'deemed' it so.

Let me defend the diversity of OLO. I too have been an avid reader and sometimes contributor to OLO. Over the years I to have found I am reading less and less of the articles published.

However I think that has been the result of OLO attracting a much wider group of contributors. Many of those people have interests and concerns that I'd never considered and in many cases I'm simply am not interested. I don't see that as a decline but much rather an increase in diversity. I'd be more concerned if item after item had no or very few comments. And that happily isn't the case and just proves we are thankfully all different and tolerant. Well done Susan and Graham.

In the climate change debate I'm a fence sitter. I simply don't know what is causing the changes in temperature, both up and down. I read as much as I can but recently I've stopped reading the articles of people who support the idea of manmade climate change simply because they have so little to so that is new. On the other hand people who don't support or who question Climate change causation are contributing new data, information and opinion.

Seeing Clive leave OLO for that reason leaves me totally underwhelmed.

As for bias in OLO I've experienced rejection and think they lean far to far to thr left. Oh and as a personal note the rejection I received was justified. I sat down re-assessed what I'd written and simply rewrote the article. It was published in it's new form. The content didn't really change. Many people deride my opinions and challenge them. In one particular opinion I see great imbalance in articles. It only encourages me to debate.

Since none of us here are climate scientists, it really boils down to your 'faith' in the abilities of scientists to understand and adequately model the earth. Scepticism is pretty natural and healthy as most people can grasp that the earth is very complex, and it takes a lot of faith to believe our best minds have it all worked out already.

I'm afraid I will remain a sceptic, and be happy to weigh up the consequences of action to prevent climate change against the consequences if the scientists are right.

If we act slowly (as we are), we don't risk as much unnecessary harm to our way of life if they turn out to be wrong, but still have the ball rolling in case it becomes obvious they are right. I think that's a balanced approach to the risks. More information may become available further down the track for or against AGW.

That's all it is really. A risk management exercise.

The important thing is people have the conservation of the earth in their minds when making decisions these days. Pollution is plainly bad, and our attitudes have changed greatly for the better in this respect over the past 10 years.

Further to my previous posts, here is some more reading material supportive of the thesis that the Sun (through its various processes) is the main regulator of our climate. This Guide to the Literature/potted history will be split over several posts in the days ahead:

There is universal agreement within the scientific community that astronomical factors, including the variable Sun, have driven the Earth’s climate dynamics throughout past millennia and previous centuries. The Sun regulates our climate through four distinct processes all of which are highly variable over time. These are: the Sun’s electromagnetic radiation; the Sun’s output of plasma; the Sun’s electromagnetic field; the Sun’s gravitational field. It is to be noted that the tides we experience are the joint operation of the gravitational fields of the Sun and the Moon. Of tidal events, the 18.6 year Lunar Nodal Cycle has the most distinctive climatological outcome. Events such as volcanos and earthquakes have been contributing causes. The Earth’s climate system displays a natural, intrinsic internal variability which also contributes to cycles of warming as cooling as does the massive re-engineering of the planet over the last 300+ years.

Four recently published textbooks provide much detail. The textbooks are: Kamide, Y. and Chian, A. (Eds.) 2007. Handbook of the Solar Terrestrial Environment. Springer;
Calisesi, Y., Bonnet, R. M., Gray, L., Langen, J. and Lockwood, M. (Eds) 2006. Solar Variability and Planetary Climates. Springer; and
Haigh, J. D., Lockwood, M. and Giampapa, M. S. (2005). The Sun, Solar Analogs and the Climate. Saas Fee Advanced Course 34, 2004. Springer;
Pap, J. M., Fox, P., Frohlich, C., Hudson, H. S., Kuhn, J., McCormack, J., North, G., Sprigg, W., and Wu, S. T., (eds) 2004 Solar Variability and its Effects on Climate. Geophysical Monograph Series Volume 141 American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.

A potentially boundless guide to the entire field, including major historical reviews and profiles of key historic persons and events, can be found at the website of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics of the University of California, Los Angeles. See http://measure.igpp.ucla.edu/index.html
http://measure.igpp.ucla.edu/solar-terrestrial-luminaries/
http://measure.igpp.ucla.edu/solar-terrestrial-luminaries/TL_bibliography.html

What a petulant child.Graham Young has never said that he was a deniar.He like others question the science,since is far from proven.What's wrong with being a sceptic? If the doomsayers are right then it is already too late for humanity.If we can avert a disaster,will China/India take notice of 20 million Australians anyway?
Since 1998 the ocean temps recorded by NASA have fallen,so have the atmospheric temps.Anthropological Global warming is still a theory and so is the influence of CO2.
The author would have us believe that everyone should share his opinions or be labelled as selfish hedonestic deniars.Show us the scientific proof and we will believe.

Clive Hamilton deals in dogma, not logical exploration. In the 60's & 70's, the various Australian Communist parties were heavily populated with ex-Catholics, people who no longer believed in god but still wanted certainties with no ambiquities. When the Communists folded, these people migrated into environmentalism. As such, they give foul rational envirinmental concerns with their outdated dogma.

One must admire Clive Hamilton's ability to prevent facts polluting his dogma. He is a cultural relic of the old CPSU.

Clive Hamilton’s claim that OLO has been captured by propagandists is accurate and validated – witness the avalanche of inane ‘skeptic’ responses here and Editor Graham Young’s ample silence.

It’s worth revisiting Young’s outraged and outrageous defence of fellow climate sceptic Don Aitkin (15 May) from alleged ‘bullying’ by ABC Science broadcaster Robyn Williams: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7373&page=0

Young did his own nice line in bullying:
“…He [Williams] isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a science broadcaster with an honours degree in biology. The chances are that he has no formal training in physics, the key to understanding climate science.” Young doesn’t cite his own qualifications.

“…Williams appears to have picked-up the campaigning bug early in life. His father was a public servant and Marxist who sold socialist newspapers on the street.” My father was an alcoholic…but I hardly touch the stuff.

“…He has smeared a respected academic using doctored quotes and shoddy research, and he puffs his curriculum vitae with imagined qualifications…” A highly emotive attack on William’s honourary degrees.

For his part Don Aitkin told OLO on 15 May that he had no complaint and was generous in praise of Williams:

“…Just as Robyn exerted no influence over me with respect to the content of my talks, since that is my business, I believe that he is entitled to introduce speakers as he likes: that is his business…”

To which an unchastened and unblushing Young replied:

“Don does not complain about Williams, but that is not really the point. [Oh really?] As I say in the article, the point of the bullying is to intimidate others, not him specifically.” Unspecified others? Who?

“Am I a global warming skeptic, as has been asserted? Asks Young... And answers inter alia, “…If that makes me a skeptic, then so be it. I'd rather be on that side than on the side of some mythical consensus that doesn't exist, and even if it did, would prove nothing.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7373&page=0

OLO is lacking quality control - which has nothing to do with censorship, just integrity. Has Graham Young been around too long?

Wow....people like bushbasher and clive really amaze me. Do a search on onlineopinion for climate change and see that there is a huge number of articles split on each side of the debate. Darn bias!

The real problem is that people like busbasher and Clive is that they want to shut down debate. Like Al Gore, they want the debate to be over. The problem is, this cheap propaganda trick is failing to impress the public, with survey numbers showing a significant proportion of people moving away from thinking man made climate change is a significant issue.

For those who keep complaining about the lack of peer review for man made climate change realists, I have to wonder: Have they even bothered to look for themselves?

For instance, this link http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html contains lots of articles in scientific journals, many of which were peer reviewed.

The debate is not over. Screaming and kicking your feet will not change that simple fact.

i stopped commenting a long while ago
but when i read the sad demise of on line opinion
i just take that as a personal threat

Here we have an auther using two pages
[not to post a factual case supporting his means of income]
but to make a vitriolic appeal [threat?] based on other issues [aids has its cause with polio live virus mnade from monkeys ;

i have yet to meet any one with it [i know lots of people dying of it but they all been written down as smoking deaths]

thing is i heard the sky is falling too many times
each time i believe it it costs me cash

this new global tax is set to raise an extra tax upon the poor equaling 85 trillion PER YEAR ,as if that cost couldnt rebuild our industries with its one year [let alone it being with us infinatly]

just as smokers tax [and drinkers tax[and gst tax ,[compusory super cash ,[medicare cash
it seems allways the first cure from these scares is cash!

85 trillion is a lot of cash
for big buisness to do more bigger buisness?

i bought a new computer for y2k scare
i bought the flue shot for the bird flue
seems its all about cash
[our cash]
beat it up
cash it in

post up facts
please present facts
and leave olo alone!

we know who would shut down the truth
is only after ways and means to get more of our cash
parilise us with fear
then rob us blond

the sun in one day releases more energy into our earth than we get from a year from ALL our energy sources

Grey, I was trying to get the energy to post something anyway, but your link tipped the balance. I don't know much about how climate science works, but I have seen the politics work and in particular how these the sceptics work. So I went to a page, and choose a single paper at random, but near the end. Near the end because I thought he might of actually read the first ones in case people check. I clicked on this one: "Test for harmful collinearity among predictor variables used in modeling global temperature".

Title sounds bad, doesn't it? So does the abstract. It says in part: "In a recent paper Santer et al. (2001; J Geophys Res 106:28033- 28059) questioned the validity of such studies, noting that large El Niño events have occurred at the same time as 2 major volcanoes. They calculated a correlation between these 2 variables and claimed that this indicates collinearity, which can adversely affect any regression analyses.". Translated: Santer says the the analysis done by the climate scientists were wrong.

Obviously Pete didn't get past that. Because if he had read the conclusions of he would of seen the paper says Santer is wrong. The paper is in fact a peer reviewed paper supporting the science behind AGW.

Maybe this particular skeptic is unusual, maybe he ie normally very careful and unbiased in his research. But he quotes a lot of links, and I don't have the time to check them all. So I am going to reply on my sample of 1 and instead trust what wikipedia says on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

PS. I should also say thanks for posting some verifable data. Most don't.

Clive and friends,

“The polar temperature is positively correlated with the SC, with a statistically significant zonal mean warming of approximately 4.6 K in the 10-50-hPa layer in the mean and 7.2 K from peak to peak. This magnitude of the warming in winter is too large to be explainable by UV radiation alone. The evidence seems to suggest that the polar warming in NH late winter during SC-max is due to the occurrence of sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), as noted previously by other authors. This hypothesis is circumstantially substantiated here by the similarity between the meridional pattern and timing of the warming and cooling observed during the SC-max and the known pattern and timing of SSWs, which has the form of large warming over the pole and small cooling over the midlatitudes during mid- and late winter. The eQBO is also known to precondition the polar vortex for the onset of SSWs, and it has been pointed out by previous authors that SSWs can occur during eQBO at all stages of the solar cycle. The additional perturbation due to SC-max does not double the frequency of occurrence of SSWs induced by the eQBO.” – Selected from Abstract by Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka Kit

What the above and the rest of the article seems to say is that owing to eleven year cycles in the Earth’s orbital wobble, there are times that North Pole is strongly-heated (SSW) and that heat is dissipated and cooled to the mid-latitudes. The article mentions that the movement of highs-to-lows creates winds, a vortex, that would lessen the effect of sudden stratospheric warmings [at the North Pole] towards the mid-latitudes. Else put, think of an iron on an ironing board and the heat dissipates. If the board was fanned, the effect lessens. In the case of the climatic example, the patterns follow a forward-cycle, then a reverse-cycle.

These scientists here are not taking a position “for” or “against” human intervention in warming: Merely describing a system.

What would be significant is, finding the existence of a tilting point disrupting the above system.

-Cont.-

Clive,

- What is the abovementioned Earth-Sun system’s tipping point, explicitly? Data.

- How does your discrimination analyses support your posit? Present data, not opinion. Show us your constructs and model. Okay?

- Data, Clive, data.

- What is your model?

Lemniscate,

Good citations. These findings should be used as line in the sand, qualifications, or benchmarking, not an argument “for” or “against” climate change, in isolation. These studies tell us how things work.Super-added, we need to address Earth’s “tolerances” against, how things work. Metaphorically, will the elevator support 100 kg, 500 kg or 10,000 kg?

p.s. To produce a line of best fit, a regression of the sum of least squares, on a time line, volcanos would normally be excluded from the data set. That said, if we are not testing the normalised model, rather the extent of deviations in the System, including human activity, volcanos should be included, because the sum of normal activity + volcanos + human activity needs to measured against tolerance.

GrahamY,

I feel debaters are taking models relating extraneous contexts, say, heat in relation to celestial dynamics, and bending material of rightful fit for the researchers’ purposes; and, transmuting results, for unrightful, unrelated, unfit conclusions. The data may be good, but the context is wrong.

Extrapolation, via linear regression, is helpful, but limited. In the late 1990s, y=a+bx models, predicted continuous smooth growth of .Coms into this century.

All,

- My abovementioned comments goes to both parties in the debate, for all concerned or not concerned about global warming?

- How can we debate, “Are we speeding?”, without knowing the speed limit?

- If Clive Hamilton does not answer my challenge. Perhaps, he has more hot air, than the Solar Wind?

Please note, I am NOT picking a debate with Clive on Global Warming, rather with his poor writing [construction not literacy] and lack of sound methodology.

Cheers.

Tis also sad that people like Clive Hamiliton wants to divide the world into simplistic believers and deniars.

I have disagreed with OLO giving oxygen to people like Keysar Trad who I find devisive and repulsive,however I did not threaten excommunication of OLO because of my perceived intellectual prowess.

Graham was right is labelling some of these high priests of our so called nefarious,intellectual elite as nothing but bullies.

Graham has a more pleasant turn of phrase,however the sheer arrogrance of Clive just displays his ignorance of the true scientific method.Clive's hypothisis has yet to be fully tested,but claims that the sceptics are nothing more than mere heretics.

Clive and his ilk are asking the world to believe in an unproven theory because the bulk of scientists have a gut feeling that AGW and CO2 influences on climate are self evident,without the relevant data or the analyisis that proves the logical connections.

No person in a Western Court of Law would be convicted or murder with the evidence presented by the AGW exponents.It is nothing more than circumstancial.Case dismissed.

Sadly, it seems to me that the debate, at least in this forum, IS over. Not because it is settled, but because there can be no meaningful debate without some respect for opposing views. I do not see that Clive has made one accusation in this piece that could not be levelled equally towards elements of the AGW affirmatives. People are generally predisposed to see in others what they don’t want to see in themselves. And 'both' sides - I don't like the black & white division - are prone to this.

My view, however, is that the destructive first stone, that has precluded healthy debate, was thrown by AGWers when they labelled anyone, as Clive does here, who analyses, questions and critiques the validity and reliability of climate science methods, procedures, protocols and statistics - something that should be absolutely fundamental and actively encouraged, especially given the importance of the issue on a global environmental and economic scale - as “denialists”. What arrogance to say if you even challenge my work you are in denial! It renders debate an impossibility, is an exercise in extreme control, and comes closer to a totalitarian claim to The Truth, inconvenient or not, than scepticism does to denial. No other scientific field, especially one that deals with such complex data, virtual modelling and so many unknowns – admitted even by the IPCC - would dare see itself as so beyond scrutiny.

To liken such scientific rigour to Holocaust denialism, as Robyn Williams has previously in his book on Intelligent Design, is worthy of a scathing response. But in labelling this denialism, Clive actually reveals his wish to DENY opponents the right to have any response at all

I wish I could claim authorship of the following brilliant argument AGAINST rash action concerning CO2, but I can't. The author derives an easily-understandable probability formula measures the seriousness with which we should respond to "global warming". Spot on...

All of the following is a quote from http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/global-warming/

In order to adopt the Warmers’ full program, you have to prove:

1. That we can accurately measure whether the earth is getting warmer or not.
2. That the proxy data (ice core samples, tree rings, etc.) is reliable enough to provide a good baseline for comparison.
3. That the timeline of climate change is adequately large to be meaningful. (1,000 years versus 1 billion, for example).

Now that you’ve proven all these things. You must prove:

4. That we can accurately assess man’s contributions to the putative warming.
5. That we can accurately model and predict how changes to man’s behavior will affect the putative warming trend.
6. That we can meaningfully lower man’s impact on the climate through a coordinated global effort.
7. That this effort at remediation can be shared equitably around the world.

If you’ve gotten that far, then you must show:

8. That the global efforts at combating the putative warming have a net quality of life and economic benefit around the globe. In other words, the costs of remediation are outweighed by the benefits.

Finally, you need to disprove that:

9. There is a higher net benefit to mankind by letting the earth warm, as the above post discusses.

If you take any reasonable guess at odds for each of these and plug this percentage into a sequential probability formula, you can see how utterly ridiculous this whole warming religion is. You can never get even close to 50 percent. These idiots want to tax us all into oblivion for a longshot bet that none of them would make at a craps table.

pAGWR = (p1 * p2 * p3 * p4 * p5 * p6 * p7 * p8) * (1 - p9)

Linear thinking is indeed in short supply among these so-called climate scientists.

Just a note to say that my piece from Thursday 26 June, 'Is climate change "the" issue, or one of many', is not, as one commenter to this article appears to think, one in a series published by Online Opinion expressing climate change denialism. The title reflects the motion put to the recent Deakin debate, which was part of the 2008 Deakin lectures.

In the piece, it is very clear which side of the debate I come down on. Climate change is real, and urgent action must be taken globally, including by Australia in response to the Garnaut Review. My article makes the point that there is little point setting up false oppositions between climate change and other issues, such as global poverty, as they are more productively seen as very much related. However, I conclude that climate change deserves recognition as the overarching issue, agreeing with Chris Turner, a speaker in the debate, that, despite the importance of many other issues, climate change is 'the big tent in which they all dance'.

Further, I did not care at all for the recent Harris and McLean piece, and agree with Clive Hamilton's comments in that regard, but I was happy that Online Opinion chose to give space to my piece on the Deakin debate, and to include links to recent reports suggesting our target for carbon emissions needs to be a lot lower - for example, in Bill McKibben's late-2007 Washington Post piece reporting James Hansen's finding that 350ppm would be a CO2 target more likely to avert dangerous climate change.

What a shame there isn't a hardcopy edition of Online Opinion so Clive could burn it.

Duncan73": What a shame there isn't a hardcopy edition of Online Opinion so Clive could burn it."

What a shame many OLO posters can't see the difference between preferring to publish elsewhere and censorship.

What are you arguing: That Clive Hamilton should be forced to publish on OLO? Or that he has no right to be critical of any perceived bias on OLO? Or that he should not defend his colleagues from the OLO's editor's over-the-top criticism? That Clive Hamilton should be censored?

Can we use this debate to refocus on “climate change”?

Over millennia, the world has undergone “climate change” cycles of warm periods and ice ages, associated with solar and volcanic activity. Three key questions of relevance are (my opinion) 1) the contribution of humankind in the last 5,000 years, 2) how big that contribution may be by us in 21st century, and 3) what can we do about it. I can only briefly discuss in a short post.

Humankind started contributing to environmental changes with burning of grass and woodlands as an aid to hunting. When nomadic tribes first settled in valleys and plains, humankind cut down trees for shelter, fuel, and tools. The denuded hills in Western Europe, Middle East and Mediterranean give testimony.

In last 2 centuries, large tracts of field and arable land have been replaced by brick and concrete cities and roads, with different heat absorption and reflection properties. This may only be 5% of the world’s surface, but has made city liver hotter, as air conditioners testify.

Currently, we are witnessing melting of ice caps, bigger cycles of “wet and dry” than in previous decades, potential population and food crises and some measurable increase in sea levels. Some may be part of a natural cycle, but it would be difficult to deny some contribution from humankind.

Over the globe, population has grown enormously. We cannot expect undeveloped countries not to seize opportunities for economic prosperity.

In simple terms, this raises issues of “shelter, food and fuel” and the clash with environmental and climate issues. In reality, it is a complex challenge.

So far, a lot of debate has focused on alternative forms of producing energy. Good, but more consideration needs be given to more efficient use of existing resources and energy in urban design; e.g. double-glazing, solar hot water, more efficient cars, water recycling, etc.

We need to develop an attitude of mind and range of practical and achievable solutions.

I am commercially involved in solid and permeable seawall construction for protection of coastlines and marine wet lands. We have to start somewhere.

Darren

"Just a note to say that my piece from Thursday 26 June, 'Is climate change "the" issue, or one of many', is not, as one commenter to this article appears to think, one in a series published by Online Opinion expressing climate change denialism. The title reflects the motion put to the recent Deakin debate, which was part of the 2008 Deakin lectures."

My apologies, but it certainly is an unfortunate choice of title! "Is climate change 'the' issue, or one of many?" definitely gives the impression of downplaying the importance of climate change. I understand that climate change does have a complex interplay with poverty, but it is still the most urgent issue facing humanity. If we fail on this one, nothing else really matters.

Every title of every article arguing such a case should have a title that reflects this reality. Especially on OLO where there are so many articles and time constraints force you to make selective judgements based largely on your reading of the initial title.

"Some may be part of a natural cycle, but it would be difficult to deny some contribution from humankind."

There is no proof that there is any contribution from anthropogenic sources. There has also been no warming since 1998.

Many of the cycles of earth climate come from Milankovic Cycles which involve changes in earth orbit, eccentricity, wobbles, and variations in the angle of tilt, which have varying periods.

Hi Bronwyn,

A bit harsh to criticise the title, when, as I say, it reflected the motion put before the Deakin debate. That motion, I imagine, was deliberately framed to be provocative, though it did not imply that climate change wasn't 'an' issue (see, however, my discussion of two of the speakers for the negative - they seemed reluctant to grant it 'issue' status). Again, if you read the article, my position is clear. Thank you for the apology.

Cheers, Darren

Bronwyn “I understand that climate change does have a complex interplay with poverty, but it is still the most urgent issue facing humanity. If we fail on this one, nothing else really matters.”

I do not think so.

I think maintaining the liberty of individuals in the face of state or government dominance is the most important thing.

I think to experience and personally grow through the deployment of individual choice is a fundamental freedom and is why we are born in the first place.

I think “climate change” is an emotional hobby horse which, for some (possibly with too much time on their hands or have an innate interest which they are using to claim their 15 minutes of fame) can be used to terrorise the rest of us but really could be easily fixed by doing something about population numbers.

I think “poverty” is as much a matter of attitude as it is of economic alienation.

Conversely, I think when people are denied the right to follow the path of their own choosing, through the imposition of over zealous central or local government regulation and taxation, you destroy the environment which makes life worth living.

Now I am sure you disagree with me and I recognise and support your right to disagree.

However, if we look through the pages of history, they are soiled by actions of powerful theologies and organised governments, crushing the individuals who they are supposedly intended to serve.

We have seen here an example of someone of public prominence deciding his view is omnipotent and because others have the temerity to criticise and challenge that view, he is going to withdraw his contribution, not silently but with a clamour and bustle of the petulant and bullying child.

God forbid such intolerance is ever expressed or sanctioned by government because, when they are, we are all damned and our individual worth, assigned to irrelevance.

We still come back to the central agenda –

Climate Change > Carbon Tax > Socialism by Stealth

Viking I agree with your assertion

EvilCapitalist, those who believe in global warming don’t have to prove the points that you quote to any greater extent than those who don’t believe in it would have to prove the opposite.

If you wish to absolutely assert that there is no AGW then you would need to prove points 1 to 3, the opposite of point 4 – that we can accurately assess anthropogenic contributions as not contributing to changing temperature, and the opposite of point 5 – that we can accurately model and predict that further increases in CO2, CH4, etc will have no impact on warming.

You wouldn’t need to worry about points 6 to 9.

Of course, denialists can’t do this. So the whole argument from that side of the debate that AGW advocates have to prove anything is fundamentally silly.

I believe that AGW is very real, but I can’t get enthused about it. There are much bigger and more urgent issues, namely peak oil, population growth and sustainability. The whole climate change debate is more of distraction from these huge issues than a meaningful debate.

What’s more, in addressing these other issues as effectively as we possibly could, we would be dealing with greenhouse gas emissions as effectively as we possibly could, whereas the reverse is certainly not true.

Rather than complain about an imbalance in this debate on this forum in favour of the denialists, as Clive Hamilton has done, I would complain about our collective misfocussed energies, which should be directed much more so at the other big three abovementioned interconnected issues….which I am pleased to say all get pretty good coverage on OLO.

Further to yesterday’s posts.
Scafetta etal:

The non-equilibrium thermodynamic models we used suggest that the Sun is influencing climate significantly more than the IPCC report claims. If climate is as sensitive to solar changes as [our] phenomenological findings suggest, the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly over-estimated.

Wilson, etal:
The level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 - 2 C. Changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.

We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System. We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun. However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling. Some researchers have proposed that it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun that controls both the duration and strength of the Solar cycle. We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun’s equatorial rotation speed. Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn.

The Wilson etal reference:
Wilson, I. R., Carter, B. D. and Waite, I. A. “Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?” Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85–93 Published: 26 June 2008

Just published; by Australian astronomers.

Here is another recent relevant publication:

ABSTRACT
Rhodes Fairbridge died on 8th November, 2006. He was one of Australia’s most accomplished scientists and has a special connection with Australia. In July, 1912 his father Kingsley established Fairbridge Village near Perth.

It contains a chapel of elegant simplicity designed by one of the world’s most famous architects of the time, Sir Herbert Baker, as a labour of love to commemorate Kingsley. Rhodes is one of the few scientists to research the sun/climate relationship in terms of the totality of the sun’s impact on the earth (i.e. gravity, the electromagnetic force and output and their interaction). When the totality of the sun’s impact is considered, having regard to the relevant research published over the last two decades, the influence of solar variability on the earth’s climate is very strongly non-linear and stochastic. Rhodes also researched the idea that the planets might have a role in producing the sun’s variable activity. If they do and if the sun’s variable activity regulates climate, then ultimately the planets may regulate it. Recent research about the sun/climate relationship and the solar inertial motion (sim) hypothesis shows a large body of circumstantial evidence and several working hypotheses but no satisfactory account of a physical sim process. In 2007 Ulysses will send information about the solar poles. This could be decisive regarding the predictions about emergent Sunspot Cycle No 24, including the sim hypothesis.

According to the sim hypothesis, this cycle should be like Sunspot Cycle No 14, and be followed by two that will create a brief ice age. During the 1920s and ‘30s Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology published research about the sun/climate relationship, especially Sunspot Cycle No 14, showing that it probably caused the worst drought then on record.
See: http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

I am glad Clive is not President of the World, because he clearly does not understand the adage "don't shoot the messenger".

Clive look at me: the very point of this technology is that it allows a thousand flowers to bloom. That's important because we know from history that important ideas can come out of left field.

The Establishment (scientific or otherwise) is not always right, even when they are in the vast majority. Instance - Galileo and the solar system, the plate tectonics guy who most geologists dismissed as a loony and most recently Barry what's-his-name who was poo-hoo'ed when he said gastric ulcers were caused by bacteria, then given a Nobel when they realised he had a point.

Tread carefully, Mr Hamilton, for you are growing shrill.

How about having a go at Ziggy Sitkowski - now there is a real whacker. This guy is trying to convince us that nuclear is somehow more economically responsible than renewable. I mean, where does he get off? He is the one you should be attacking, not those who are asking questions. Asking questions is good. Making baseless assertions is bad. How about this for example: Nuclear is insane. Always has been, always will be. Anything that demands a 2,000 year attention span is nuts. And yet society continues to feed him? He should be locked up for his insolence.

How sad that if you do not agree with someone then you are pillaried! If this 'gentleman' actually looked at the science he would see that AGW is a myth. Climate Change is caused by natural cycles based on solar output and Milankovich Cycles. There may be other natural cycles that we know nothing about at the moment. CO2 is not a polutant but is a vital gas for all forms of life. Past levels that were up to 20 times that of today did not cause runaway global warming, in fact ice ages occurred with these high CO2 levels. So why the problem with the levels that we endure today?
This man should learn some humility and some science and talk to Prof Bob Carter, James Cook University, NSW, Australia, to get the whole picture. He denies AGW, as many scientists do, but believes in climate change as caused by natural cycles alone.

I stumbled across this post from Graham, evidently made in a different era:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=154#2803

How times change. Perhaps they will change again, and Clive will see way clear to contribute again to OLO.

Reminders to smart-arse GW Bush lovers.

Flouting of our Strategic Laws

Geneva and Hague Conventions now illegally superseded by self elected pax Americana.
Caused by an elitist militaristic US now sidestepping the United Nations.

Formerly war-racked nations of Europe, now seem eager to keep mostly away from such problems, especially regarding the US.

Such earlier weaknesses said to have allowed little Israel to join the big powers, and now in possession of over 200 hundred nuclear rockets ready to go.

According to top historians the case of letting Israel begin an illegal nuclear programme so close to its being allowed to return to its original homeland after over two thousand years, has virtually left academic global historians dismayed to the point it is sometimes difficult to get an audience with them.

IT was Henry Kissinger who made a statement, now in Government archives warning Richard Nixon that keeping quiet about Israel’s venture into atomic warfare, could greatly upset the future balance of power in the Middle East –

And an Islamic resentment which surely helped to bring on 9/11.

Thus we now have the problem of Israel’s No 1 target, Iran, once former Persia, and now a greater nation of 70 million, in danger of an attack from tiny Israel, with the full weight of the GW Bush driven fake US Constitutional Prerogative behind her.

It is also well to remember that the above has not the backing of the American people, similar to the plan of putting the plentiful remnants of Saddam’s quarter million Iraqi Sunni national guard later turned insurgents against American occupation - and now on the US military payroll as the major focus of the Great Iraqi Awakening.

For more info’ try the Washington Post.

Cheers - BB, WA

Thank you, rstuart, for reminding us that it's not so long ago that Graham Young was making flattering remarks about Clive Hamilton ("(I seem to be agreeing with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute a lot at the moment" - OLO 17 October 2006.)

That confession sits uneasily with this current comment from Graham: "...his positions have a place on OLO, even though I rarely agree with them." Which is it, Graham? Agreeing a lot? Or rarely agree with him?

For the several bombastics who have accused Hamilton of trying to censor or stifle debate by withdrawing from OLO - and who can blame them when Graham headlined his diatribe against Clive provocatively, "Silencing dissent" - it's enlightening to look at a few salient facts concerning Hamilton's history of contributions to OLO.

According to data provided by OLO, Hamilton has published a grand total of 12 articles in 6 years and only once has he contributed to a discussion of an article - and that was last week.

By contrast, our worthy editor, who presumably was responsible for his own headline, has allowed OLO to publish 88 of his own articles and 376 other contributions (194 comments on articles and 182 general comments).

Remember this is the editor of OLO who said: "No contributor has special privileges on OLO. We don't do editorials, and when I contribute to debate, apart from rare appearances as forum moderator, it is on the same basis as everyone else."

The discerning OLO reader will ask whether Graham hasn't been playing games with us: "Clive and I decided the basis of this duel before commencing it. I even gave him the choice of venues - here or the blog."

He then cutely asks: "...why is Clive taking the time to write to its editors?...before declaring that Hamilton is "a man who has forfeited any right to take part in this debate".

Who's talking censorship? Who's manipulating On Line Opinion?

Let's have no more nonsense about Clive Hamilton trying to stifle debate and free speech.

There is a long established relationship between the Earth’s variable rotation (measured by Length of Day (LoD)) and climate. As rotation accelerates the Earth warms; as it de-accelerates the Earth cools. But there is a time lag of most likely six years between the change in the Earth’s rotation and global temperature changes.

See 2001 FAO Fisheries technical paper No. 410 of “Climate Change and Long-Term Fluctuations of Commercial Catches – The Possibility of Forecasting”, by Prof Klyashtorin of the Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography Moscow, http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2787E/y2787e01.htm

In 1976 Australia’s Kurt Lambeck, now President AAS, and authority on the Earth’s variable rotation, relied on a speed-up in the Earth’s rotation to predict that the planet wouldn’t freeze as then predicted by the world’s meteorologists, but would warm up.

In “Long Term Variations in the Length of Day and Climate Change”, Geophysical Journal International Vol 26 Issue No 3 pps 555 to 573 Sept 1976), Kurt with his colleague Amy Cazenave wrote page 570):

“Whatever mechanism is finally proposed it will have to explain the apparently significant lag that is found between the LoD and the various climatic indices, temperature and excitations. The interest of this lag suggests that the LoD observations can be used as an indicator of future climatic trends, in particular of the surface warmings. Without a better understanding of the interactions between the two phenomena the use of the LoD observations in predicting climate is of very limited value but if the hypothesis is accepted, then the continuing deceleration of m for the last 10 yr suggests that the present period of decreasing average global temperature will continue for at least another 5-10 yr. Perhaps a slight comfort in this gloomy trend is that in 1972 the LoD showed a sharp positive acceleration that has persisted until the present, although it is impossible to say if this trend will continue as it did at the turn of the century or whether it is only a small perturbation in the more general decelerating trend.

A further post to help Clive and others understand that there is a lot more to the Earth's climate dynamics that the IPCC let on. And, that there is a wealth of evidence of the Sun's pre-eminent role regardless of what the IPCC, CSIRO, BoM or Ross Garnaut says.

Remember Galileo who in another time insisted on a certain role for the Sun even though the cardinals and the Pope decreed otherwise.

This post connects with the previous one

Now read on.......................

There are several well-established relationships between the behaviour of the Sun and the decadal or longer changes in the rotation of the Earth. (Over shorter periods the changes seem all internal to the Earth system).

There is a gravitational relationship; there is a relationship indicating a transfer of angular momentum from the Sun to the Earth via the Sun’s plasma output; there is a relationship between the Sun’s variable electromagnetic field and the Earth’s rotation via the effect on the Earth’s magnetic field.

These relationships have been established by many scientists over many years. There are heaps of papers published in the main solar physics/geophysical peer reviewed scientific journals that put all of these relationships together.

There is also an intriguing relationship reported by several scientists, eg Katya Georgieva of Bulgaria, that connects a transfer of angular momentum to the Sun from the planets of the solar system to the rotation of the Earth via the Sun’s plasma output.

Spikey,

"I seem to be agreeing with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute a lot at the moment" seems to suggest that agreeing "with Clive Hamilton's Australia Institute" was something out of the ordinary for Graham. The two sit well together unless you are looking for something sinister.

'headlined his diatribe against Clive provocatively, "Silencing dissent"' it might be a more provactive headline if it was not the title of a book Clive edited
http://www.smh.com.au/news/book-reviews/silencing-dissent/2007/02/09/1170524288496.html

"Hamilton has published a grand total of 12 articles in 6 years and only once has he contributed to a discussion of an article - and that was last week." - how much better if Clive had got down and dirty with the discussions that followed his pieces.

"it is on the same basis as everyone else" - find the places please where Graham or Susan have had different posting priviliges than other posters. Where they have involved themselves in a discussion and posted more often or in more words than allowed to other posters. Tell us about the times where attacks on Graham's logic or beliefs appear to have been censored (other than for clear cut breaches of the published forum rules).

"a man who has forfeited any right to take part in this debate" in context appears to refer to Clives comment "There I also explain why I do not presume to engage in arguments about climate science because I do not have the expertise to do so without making a fool of myself." http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580 - there is the forfeit.

OLO carries articles from both sides of what is an important debate, a debate some (such as Clive) wish to declare over but which others of us while holding opinions are still keen to consider the arguments for and against.

I'm personally of the view that the evidence is sufficient to warrent action but the desire of some to have the other side of the debate silenced bothers me a lot. That suggests to me that the information my existing opinions are based on might already have been subjected to those tactics.

R0bert

It can be difficult for non-scientists such as myself to untangle claimed scientific evidence that solar flares and such are behind global warming. However, reading the various posts attempting to establish this link, I remembered and found an ABC science report from 2007. 'Study clears sun of global warming' can be found here:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/07/11/1975695.htm

The article refers to research published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, which can be found here:

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/index.cfm?page=1086

The latter page refers to two follow-up articles that back up the initial study. The abstract of the third paper states in part:

"It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."

That is to say, as reported by the ABC regarding the initial finding, solar variability is likely to have acted to cool rather than heat the planet in recent times.

In accordance with the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence - the IPCC and our own CSIRO included - the warming evident in the atmosphere is resulting from increasing CO2 concentrations (387ppm and rising) from human activity. That's the problem that needs to be addressed nationally, in response to findings from Garnaut, and internationally, as we enter 2009 negotiations for a successor to Kyoto.

The papers cited in the research above are heavily referenced with other recent findings. I very much doubt that the spurious arguments mounted to downplay human influence on climate change can mobilise anything like the same degree of scientific corroboration. Informed debate in response to Garnaut will shape a climate strategy that full acknowledges anthropogenic climate change. Denialism as a credible position is dead in the water.

This is great news in terms of seeing the standards of OLO rising with Clive's departure. It reminds me of a Seinfeld skit with George Costanza as Clive.

George: Gerry, I wrote an opinion in OLO.

Gerry: But you said you weren’t going to write any opinions in OLO

George: Yes that’s right, I wrote an opinion in OLO about not writing an opinion in OLO.

Gerry: But you said you weren’t going to write an opinion in OLO and you also said you weren’t an expert in the field.

George: That’s right Gerry I wrote an opinion in OLO about why I wasn’t going to write an opinion in OLO about a subject I have no expertise in.

Gerry: But that’s not logical.

George: I know, but who said writing an opinion about not writing an opinion about a subject I have no expertise is has to be logical.

Gerry: Yea , you’re right. What are you writing about next?

George: About not writing opinions in areas I have no expertise.

Gerry: I want you to write a final article for OLO explaining why you've decided not to write any more articles for OLO.

George: Well, you know why. I've discussed it with you privately. What's the point?

Gerry: Yes, but I want you to tell OLO readers your reasons. It's your one big chance to tell OLO why you think we are biased and why my attack on Robyn Williams was over-the-top.

George: Yes, but the intelligent ones on OLO already understand that. Besides how can I trust you not to turn my article into just another cheap ad hominem attack?

Gerry: [Crossing fingers behind his back] I promise to play it straight and fair, George. Trust me.

George: Well, if you really think it will make any difference. I'll give it one more shot.

Gerry: [Aside] Got him! By the short and curlies! I'll crucify the bastard! I'm been after him ever since he refused to fund OLO. I'll pull the old freedom of speech versus censorship line - that'll shut him up! I can rely on the loony right OLO cave dwellers to be sucked in with that slogan. Watch them do most of the dirty work for me.

Ah well well gentlemen. It's all over except the shouting and how pleasing to note the release of the Garnaut Report - the way forward.

"Take action on climate now or risk facing more pain," says Garnaut.

Now it's just a matter of sorting out the big polluters - the "who pays for what" via The Trading scheme and the Emissions' targets.

Nevertheless, the howls and the plotting will continue from the fossil fuel industry, the neo-cons, the mining barons, the cartels, the skeptics, who have failed abysmally to acknowledge the mess we're in and who are responsible for taking absolutely no responsibility for trashing the planet.

Ian Campbell, former Liberal environment minister today offered these pearls of wisdom:

"Emissions trading schemes are not new. I promoted them as a sensible way to reduce atmospheric pollution in one of my first speeches as a senator in June 1990."

Sensible way Mr Campbell? 1990 Mr Campbell and you did nothing? It's a pity that you, as environment minister, failed to enforce the existing legislation on atmospheric pollution when you had every opportunity.

Ah but your party enjoys being captured by the big end of town Mr Campbell. It was not on your agenda to upset your donors, or their lobbyists. Aye and is that not the truth, Sir? And look at the mess we're in now. Thanks very much Mr Campbell. Eleven years of eco-vandalism in an age of enlightenment - unbelievable!

There's no need for a filibustering announcement of one's imminent departure. One cannot actually leave whilst lost in the grips of fanfare, infused with its ironic, non-scientific, egotistical personal narrative. Not very scientific, reasonable, nor even logical.

Ah well, an egotistical true-believer, eschewing logic in favour of 'esatablishing fact by personal narrative'... what a refreshingly predictable bleeding heart. Or is it bleating hard.

Phooey.

Be gone true-believing flim-flam man.

Fact is not established on mere belief. Its established on rigourous application of logic and strong, unremmiting, unapologetic logical CHALLENGES to ideas, theories and contentions. If you fear these things, then science isnt for you. If you want to quiet alternative perspectives, stomp on dissent and advance an arbitrary unassailable notion, then religion is the answer for you. Hmmm, this whole climate change thing has a tendency to appeal to true-believer types.

One should never be denigrated for merely asking questions, for challenging received wisdoms. In fact, running down people for asking questions speaks volumes. Humans have an enormous rational capacity that gives us the ability to actually see things as they truely are, but it requires clear thinking driven by logic and reason and the conscious qieting of emotions like fear and greed, otherwise they fog one's clear perspective. Not easy to do at times, but clearly possible. In fact science has done much to create a perceptual framework devoid of the muddying influences of psyche.

Science is ultimately a PROCESS of INQUIRY and it relies on not only respect for, but is ultimately driven by OPEN discourse and CLEAR thinking.

Respectfully, OLO would improve by leaps and bounds, almost instantly, if there was a mass retirement of po-mo relativists who constantly invoke discussions as proxy for believing their personal narratives. This whole 'perception is reality' and 'where you stand is what you see' and 'its all relative' self-refuting, tautological circularities that inform so many OLO pieces, is getting real old. Folks may swallow all the PC nonsense and revisionist narratives, for a while, but eventually it starts coming back up, until folks wont swallow it anymore.

It really is getting very tedious and hopelessly redundant. Lets see if k.rudd cant make him and his party redundant by ignoring the box-tickers and slapping us all with yet another tax... this time on the very air we breathe. What gives govt the right to claim the air and extract a price for it anyway.

'ps. you've announced your departure, only to return and respond by way of posts to this comment section. Now, either you like argueing with yourself or you need to make up your mind. Stay or go.

It is funny to read Clive's and others' insinuations against non-believers i.e., “denialism = 'big end of town'”. Murdoch's 'The Australian' – an organ, like Fox News, famous for its Iraq War advocacy - is so fanatical in pushing AGW that it has its dedicated “environment” hacks, along with repeated editorial sermons, to foist such beliefs on the public. Other mainstream press organs are much the same. As for the blue-chip capitalists, well they have been very smooth and established in their accomodation of the great dogma.

Emissions trading is the great hope of bubble-pumping monetarists, especially where rapidly and naturally developing smaller economies – and the current crash - could threaten the developed world's strategic dominance via fiscal speculation and other manipulation. Emissions trading pundits abound among the hedge fund and private equity crowds of econo-parasites (or should that be “eco-parasites?)

Nick Stern is an ex-boss of the World Bank, Garnault too has been on WB's payroll for a long time. And we're supposed to believe that 1) such monetarists have credible authority in matters of climate-related science, and 2) they have no vested interest as purveyors of the same funny-money fiscal religion that has burdened most of humanity with suffocating debt regimes and absurd and destructive bubbles of speculation. The intention behind AGW dogma is clearly more of the same rampant greed based on a cult of individualism and obscene inequalities propping up the privileged. Yet these people dress it up as humane concern and even “leftist radicalism!

Manbearpig and black balloons.

Does anyone know if Clive was a partcipant in the 2020 march on Canberra?

I just find it beyond belief that an entirely beneficial gas, the very reason for life itself, is now being blamed for catastrophic climate with projections of death and destruction. This belief in Algorean science is quite simply the basis of all religious pathology. It can only truly register as madness on a global scale.

e.g.
Rather than natural green CO2 fertilizer, Ruddy goofball is going to spray this diabolical guano fertilizer over everyone because we are all guilty of original carbon sin. This is a full blown sickness where hallelujah, only by the grace of Algorean science will we be saved. lol

Just consider also, that we have already done this limiting of carbon emissions if this is so important .... however not out of carbon sin i might add. e.g. The obvious major drop in carbon emissions during the depression years had NO effect at all on rising atmospheric CO2 and ZERO effect on rising temperatures.

I say, if you really want to save life on earth with all the long-term environmental benefits then burn fossil fuel.

Ruddy Goofball-Keiran I like that. Got one for his side kick ?
What makes that mutt think that a lousy 20 million Australians can have any impact on climate change. There are a three billion up north just itching to join the consumer club & a handful of silly Okkers think they can make a difference ? Gimme a break !

Hamilton's right. Many comments here and on Graham Young's discussion are indistinguishable from the drivel one reads at e.g. Tim Blair's or Andrew Bolt's blogs. Very few participants seem genuinely open to persuasion about climate change and AGW no matter what the weight of evidence is, so what's the point of wasting time?

There is little knowledge being exchanged. Rather, it's mostly denialist invective that is occasionally responded to in similar terms. Unfortunately, the usual suspects who contribute to discussions about climate change and AGW in this forum just repetitively throw rocks at each other from entrenched positions.

I'm not at all surprised that those who are involved in developing strategies to deal with global warming are drawing a line under their general argument. The time for debating the details of global warming has passed - it is time for action. The 'denialists' and 'skeptics' are noisily rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, while those who know better are tring to plug the hole and ready the lifeboats.

While there isn't much point in engaging at OLO about climate change and AGW, I'll continue to scan these threads occasionally. At least Graham only censors me on other subjects when I'm clearly OTT - I don't think Blair or Bolt have ever approved any of my comments :)

OLO is open to anybody to sign up and comment. I see no "selection" process as to whom may sign up and comment on any article.

The uncritical acceptance by the bulk of the media, and now even most politicians, of computer models purporting to show that "we are facing environmental disaster", leaves no-one of a sceptical frame of mind a place to voice their opinion.

This refusal of Clive Hamilton to further debate the issue, to me confirms that AGW is more of a religion than a science.

The Lockwood and Frohlich (L&F) paper has been discredited by the scientific community. In the 330 words available, here’s why.

L&F claim solar activity has declined since 1985 and Earth’s global average surface temperature increased since 1975. L&F compare four solar activity times-series (solar cycles, No. 21, 22, and 23) against one global average surface temperature time-series of since 1975. L&F’s conclusion:

The Earth’s surface air temperature does not respond to the solar cycle

is not established.

L&F do not address relevant findings, including:

• the need to examine the totality of solar/climate relationships (i.e. impact of variations of the four solar variables: solar radiation and matter output, and the solar electromagnetic and gravitational fields, and the interactions between them and the Earth’s climate);
• the error of using a simple global average surface temperature, when it is known that solar influence is highly variable over the globe;
• the significant differences between the three widely used time series of solar irradiance; L&F use the one Frohlich produced;
• known non-linear, non-stationary relationships;
• the known time-lagged relationship between solar activity and surface air temperature and other key climate variables (Atmospheric Angular Momentum, Length of Day and Sea Surface Temperature); and
• the established finding that the output of the two different phases (toroidal and poloidal) of the solar dynamo affect the Earth’s climate differentially, the effect of one lagging behind that of the other: the two climate effects follow two very different periodicities:

In 1982 the solar physicist, Joan Feynman, sister of Richard Feynman, showed that the aa-index of geomagnetic activity (measure of the Sun’s magnetised solar plasma) has a toroidal and a poloidal component. It has been established that the long-term variations in terrestrial temperature, attributed by the IPCC to anthropogenic activity, are due to the long-term variations in solar activity generated by solar poloidal magnetic fields. Eg,

"Long term changes in solar meridional circulation as the cause for the long-term changes in the correlation between solar and geomagnetic activity" by Katya Georgieva and Boris Kirov, solar physicists at the Solar-Terrestrial Influence Laboratory Sofia Bulgaria, see http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703187.pdf

CJ, you mention "the weight of evidence" for alarmist AGW. This implies you have no proof. Are you prepared to declare humanity guilty of an impossible crime without trial and without one bit of proof? YES or NO?

The AGW that you support is a fact free zone but perhaps if this limiting of carbon emissions is so important, i'd be interested in your response to ...... the obvious major drop in carbon emissions during the depression years had NO effect at all on rising atmospheric CO2 and ZERO effect on rising temperatures.

ALSO, if we have already done this limiting of carbon emissions to no effect what about not limiting carbon emissions and seeing global temperatures come down?

ps ... A very good post lemniscate. From my experience AGWers don't know or ignore solar and geomagnetic activity. However if they did, what's the betting that some advocacy/political group will develop a way to blame solar variability on human activity and want to tax us to fix it?

That OLO has declined in journalistic standards has become increasingly evident as this year has progressed. I read it less. It is no longer a journal but is a blog. Mr Young and his advisers have lost the plot. I continue to receive the publication in the hope that an article of substance may appear.

Rstuart,
I respect that you have taken the time to at least look at some of the article. Most global warming alarmists, like Clive, seem to think themselves above it. However, quoting wikipedia on a controversial topic is pointless, as their editors quite clearly agree with Clive (which is not a good thing for those interested in the evidence, and not just the propaganda).

One thing you should have done was review the article that the paper you reviewed was referring to. Sanders paper was actually arguing against existing climate change research that was showing less of a warming trend. To rephrase Sanders said that harmful collinearity in ENSO, TSI and volcanic signals was causing a finding of a smaller global warming trend (and thus the real trend was worse than these previous studies showed).

So Douglass Et Al was arguing that the warming trend was less than the currently accepted figure when you properly consider TSI, ENSO and volcanic signals.

There is no mistake in including the paper in the list, you just need to dig deeper.

The Abstract for Sanders paper can be found here
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000JD000189.shtml

Cheers

CJ Morgan

Could you please list the number of people killed as a result of global warming. Nearest 1,000 is fine, thanks

Grey, you are probably correct in saying the Sanders article was supporting climate models of the time - and thus the original doesn't.

However after I hit the "Submit" button on my previous post, I realised there is a bigger flaw than that. There is nothing in the original paper (or Sanders abstract that matter) that indicates disagreement, or otherwise, with AGW. It is a paper discussing a technical issue with the models. The authors stance of whether AGW is real or not is simply not mentioned.

Thus to say the paper doesn't support AGW is at best misleading. This is worse than making a mistake with one paper, as I imagine all of the other papers listed were chosen using the same criteria.

Thanks for replying as politely as you did, BTW. The tone of my response didn't deserve such kind treatment.

jc2, have you ever applied thge breaks in a car as you see yourself heading into an intersection where if you continued at speed a serious crash would almost certainly occur.

Should you have you avoided using the breaks because you and your family had not yet been killed.

In this case the world has been experiencing severe weather extremes (not proof on it's own but an expected symptom of GW whatever the cause). People are being killed by severe weather - whats the current estimate on the deaths in Burma due to the cyclone they experienced? Just one out of the ordinary incident.

R0bert

I used to read Online Opinion almost every day, but I stopped for the reasons Clive outlined. In fact I'd deleted my account and hadn't looked at OLO for months. The only way I knew that Clive had decided to say goodbye was a post in another blog.

Let me say that some of the most interesting articles I have read online have been in Online Opinion. But Clive is right. Online Opinion has been captured by the denialists. It seems that the editors have some blind spot, some irrational urge that makes them publish the silliest, most ludicrous, most poorly researched article, so long as it pushes a denialist line. The articles on global warming are extraordinary in their awfulness, particularly when compared with the excellent articles on other topics.

The day I finally decided I couldn't be bothered with OLO anymore was earlier this year when some book-keeper wrote an article that comprised a few EXCEL graphs proving that global warming had stopped in 1998. It was a shocker - a dismal piece of propaganda that wouldn't have passed muster in Primary School. If that's the quality, the depth of research, the profundity of understanding that OLO has sunk to then I'm sorry, but I'm not interested.

...demise of On Line Opinion ??

What a strange article and sentiment...

Here's my twist to this topic...

If Clive Hamilton is converting to Islam and is leaving OLO because he perceived that OLO is hijacked by anti-Islam elements then I can understand the sentiment. Not that I think OLO is captured by anti-Islam elements.

I think the main reasons so few Muslims post here are:
(1) Islam is inherently against freedom of expression
(2) Muslims are not capable of intellectually defend Islam.

I notice Muslims invariably dodge difficult questions. (Amazingly, naive sympathisers claim their evasiveness proof of "politeness")

Islamic forums are the comfort zones of Muslims. Over there they never publish claims that Muhammad lied about his encounters with an angel. Needless to say, they would never publish claims that the foundation of Islam is based on Muhammad's lies.

If Clive Hamilton is not converting to Islam... could he be leaving for a comfort zone, where any talk of climate change is politically correct?

Another thought... the Islam religion claims to be a complete way of life for 1.2 billions Muslims around the world. Has any climate-change advocate ever wondered if Islam religion gives a toss about global warning and greenhouse gas? If not, what hope is there when Muslims form such a large population on earth?

R0bert,
"In this case the world has been experiencing severe weather extremes (not proof on it's [sic] own but an expected symptom of GW whatever the cause). People are being killed by severe weather - whats [sic] the current estimate on the deaths in Burma due to the cyclone they experienced? Just one out of the ordinary incident."

The past few decades' worth of severe weather is neither out of the ordinary nor more severe. In fact, extreme weather events have caused many times the casualties of more recent ones due to better warning systems (TC Nargis is notable in that warnings available to the Burmese junta, issued by the Indian Met Service, were not disseminated to those at risk). A cyclone in 1970 killed over a half million people in Bangladesh and cyclones there have killed people in the tens of thousands for centuries.

The issue with recent severe weather events is that many people have moved into cyclone-prone (and flood-prone) regions for lifestyle and population pressure reasons. The cost of cyclones, floods and tornadoes has gone up in large part because the value of goods and infrastructure in the effected regions have increased- in the US, markedly so. In general, the cost in lives has been steadily decreasing for years, with the possible exception of the Bay of Bengal area, which is heavily populated, low-lying, and poor.

Cyclone Nargis was by no means unusual. The only thing unusual about it was the criminal negligence of the ruling junta in Burma. Katrina was not out of the ordinary either- only the preparedness (lack of) and the follow up were unusual in their slackness. Andrew was unusual only in the damage to real estate and infrastructure.

To Philbee et al

If OLO has been captured by sceptics then does that mean that there are more sceptics then warmaholics and if so is it not then a logical consequence that there is now a "consensus" that global warming is not caused by human emissions of CO2?

As to graphs/spreadsheets you cannot post anything here but if you go to NASA or Hadley's website (these are the two reference institutes used by the IPCC) you will clearly see that any warming in the Northern Hemisphere did indeed stop in 1998 and little if any warming has ever occurred in the Southern Hemisphere (SH is at 0.2C and NH 0.4C)! All land and sea sea temps have been stable or falling and all ice cover measures have been increasing (in fact the SH ice has never decreased and is at its largest extent ever!).

It is twits like you (and Hamilton and Flannery etc) who understand little of the science and just swallow the "we are all going to die" stuff and then preach it to the wider community without actually checking the real data that are doing the damage!

This debate should not be about whether or not the sceptics have hijacked OLO, or whether AGW is real or not. It should be fairly and squarely about peak oil.

Peak oil, the energy crunch, ever-rising fuel prices and the huge impact that this is threatening to have on whole national economies and the coherence of societies, coupled with overall sustainability, is the critical issue!

By addressing this properly, we will be doing as much as we possibly could to address climate change, whereas the reverse is certainly not true.

I hope to goodness that the likes of Hamilton and Flannery refocus a little. They are already strong on peak oil and sustainability, but they need to be more forthright.

The current high level of concern about climate change has GOT to morph into a critical concern about the energy crunch and the sustainability of society. At the moment, the AGW debate it is more of distraction from what really matters than a useful exercise.

Jon, you've misunderstood. The graphs weren't posted as comments. THEY WERE PART OF AN ARTICLE! It wasn't in the comments - it was an article reviewed by the editors and accepted. It seems to me that the most puerile, foolish, idiotic article gets a guernsey provided it pushes the denialist line.

Now I'm sorry, but your question "If OLO has been captured by sceptics...?" makes absolutely no sense to me. However, it looks to me like the sort of thing promoted by OLO on this topic - sophistry and woolly thinking.

Frankly, I'm sick of this. I'm going to leave you guys to it. You can keep trying to persuade yourselves that nothing is happening. But I'm just not interested.

Do very much agree with CJ Morgan.

We somehow do need an OLO adjudicator.

Sorry, my keyboards gone haywire again, thanks to Microsoft and Bill Gates.

No wonder Bill's getting out.

Reckon I'll join him?

Cheerio and no regrets - BB, WA.

Of course Graham Young is a global warming skeptic. He'd have to be.

His blog is so obviously pro-multicultural immigration.
Could his blog continue advocating massive immigration if our future was threatened?

One could only support continued massive immigration if you wear rose-coloured glasses.

Facing the negative consequences of climate change would force a pro-immigrationist to question the sustainability of present immigration levels.

And face the legitimate reality of a future defensive "Fortress Australia" where we would need to make a U-turn on migration and defend our borders against the billions of climate catastrophe refugees.

Would migrant residents and citizens of Australia put *our* interests first in the event of these potential disasters, or would their hearts be with "their" people overseas?
Denying climate change enables avoidance of this dilemma altogether.

No climate change = Immigration is a great benefit!

Climate change = Immigration is a dangerous threat!

OLO is biased for quite logical, but purely ideological, reasons.

OLO *must* be biased against climate change in order to remain politically correct on immigration.

Shockadelic, OLO hasn't published much on population for a while, but if you read Ambit Gambit where I post my own opinions you'll find that I have consistently argued that population is the major issue. The last post in which I raised this was July 7 http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003230.html. Next conspiracy theory.

Still havin' f'n trouble with computer. Managed to knock out much needed criticom.

Australia's latest climate change report reads like a disaster novel

Despite the above most of our OLO contributors are either CC Denialists or lack courage to back CC.

The CC inbetweeners are also mostly those who wish for the CC worries to go away - those still happy with life the way it is, especially in sport or business.

Quarry economics plus pitstock politics now Australia's lot. No worries about climate change.

Have Fun - BB

Sorry to see you go Clive. I have appreciated your well presented articles for some time and it is sad to see the loss of a truly alternative voice. Your well thought out views are in stark contrast to the established and vehemently held beliefs of much of the Australian public that are increasingly force feed their opinions by commercial interest including the internet. Unfortunately the public are increasingly accepting those views that fit most comfortably with the status quo no matter how poorly it is supported. Your retirement will be missed.

Wow. I am amazed by the vitriolic responses from the climate change sceptics. For a start the so called sceptical "experts" cannot present any scientific evidence contrary to the argument. All they ever do is make unsupported statements about scientists disagreeing. These "experts" are not scientists or engineers. They are accountants and business executives paid by large oil companies with vested interests and the losers cannot see any connection.

An article in The Australian a few weeks ago said climate-change believers were typically well educated & left-wing. Sceptics were typically conservative and, whatever their level of eductaion or understanding of the issue, remain unconvinced. Something to do with the newspaper they read or websites they get their news from.

Needless to say, editorial influence and the overall tone of a news source will sooner reflect than affect one's position. Who bothers paying to read stuff they disagree with? (yes, some here do but the vast majority don't)

The number of articles here questioning climate change orthodoxy would surely prompt the scientific community to ask if there's an agenda here. I don't think it unreasonable to question the motives of the editors.

That said, OLO certainly brings the fringe-dwellers together!

The AGW climate change promoters are the ones proposing a change in lifestyles and taxes on the people to achieve what they consider to be good outcomes. It is therefore up to them to prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. While not denying that the climate is changing, there is no evidence that it is changing more than what would be expected naturally. The AGW people are not providing any real evidence other than computer models. None of their other so-called evidence has proven bullet proof.
Their propensity to ad hominem attacks (climate change deniers et al) on people who reasonably ask for such evidence has alienated them, together with their wild-eyed pronouncements about the imminent death of billions of people, rising sea levels, destruction of polar bear populations etc. etc.
OLO does not discriminate as to who may join and post comments, so if there is here a preponderance of "climate change sceptics" then it is obvious to me that most people are turned off by such hyperbole and rancour.
Obviously no-one wants our world to be polluted, and if a change in how we source energy supply results in less pollution then most people would be happy about that, I'm sure.
One of the things that make me suspect the motives of the AGW proposers is their often accompanying refusal to entertain nuclear power, the only possible alternative for reasonably priced base-load electricity.

Porphyrin: "All they [sceptical 'experts'] ever do is make unsupported statements about scientists disagreeing."

Quickly followed by an unsupported statement: "These 'experts' are not scientists or engineers. They are accountants and business executives paid by large oil companies with vested interests..."

I note from wiki that "The hepatic porphyrias primarily affect the nervous system, resulting in [among other things] hallucinations and paranoia."